On September 30, 2025, the Supreme Court, composed of seven judges, adopted a groundbreaking resolution, reference number III PZP 6/24, which definitively resolves long-standing discrepancies regarding the application of pre-retirement protection under Article 39 of the Labor Code to employees employed under fixed-term contracts.
The resolution is of particular importance because it was issued by an expanded, seven-member bench of the Supreme Court, and thus acquired the status of a legal principle.
Two opposing interpretations of Article 39 of the Labor Code – the background of the discrepancies
Article 39 of the Labor Code has raised interpretational questions for years. This provision protects employees of pre-retirement age from termination of their employment contract, provided that their employment period "enables them to obtain the right to a retirement pension upon reaching that age." The question was: does this protection also extend to fixed-term employees whose contracts expire before reaching retirement age? For years, two conflicting interpretations have existed in Supreme Court case law.
The first, pro-employee, assumed a broad understanding of protection and also covered fixed-term employees, regardless of the planned end date of their contract. The second, restrictive, assumed that protection only applied to employment relationships that could last until retirement.
In its judgment of September 27, 2023 (I PSKP 21/23), the Supreme Court further confirmed this second line of case law, finding that the provision requires the possibility of "fine-tuning" seniority within an ongoing employment relationship. These discrepancies prompted the District Court in Katowice to refer a legal question to the Supreme Court.
The pro-employee interpretation triumphs – resolution of September 30, 2025.
The Supreme Court, deciding the issue in a seven-judge panel, clearly adopted a pro-employee interpretation, consistent with the protective nature of labor law.
Thesis of the resolution:
"The prohibition on terminating an employment contract under Article 39 of the Labor Code also applies to contracts concluded for a fixed term, including those whose term expires before the employee reaches retirement age."
The Supreme Court found that the purpose of the provision takes precedence over its literal wording. Article 39 of the Labor Code is intended to provide pre-retirement workers with employment stability and income security during a period when finding a new job is particularly difficult.
Practical consequences of the resolution
The adopted interpretation means, in practice, that every employee who is in the four-year period before reaching retirement age benefits from protection against dismissal – regardless of whether they work under a permanent or temporary contract. The type of contract no longer has any impact on the scope of this protection.
Consequently, an employer cannot terminate such a contract for reasons unrelated to the employee, even if its scheduled end date falls before retirement age. The resolution significantly strengthens the position of older workers in the labor market, especially in disputes concerning contract terminations shortly before retirement. The Supreme Court also noted that in the case that gave rise to the legal question, there were no grounds for excluding the protection provided for in Article 39 of the Labor Code.
When does protection not apply?
The resolution does not change the list of exceptions in which termination of an employment relationship is permissible despite pre-retirement protection. Termination is still possible in situations such as the employer's liquidation or bankruptcy, termination without notice due to the employee's fault (Article 52 of the Labor Code), termination for reasons beyond the employee's control in the event of long-term absence (Article 53 of the Labor Code), or termination by mutual consent.
The importance of the resolution for the practice of labor law
The resolution of September 30, 2025, resolves a long-standing interpretation dispute and introduces clarity in the application of Article 39 of the Labor Code. Its implications are significant for both employees and employers. Primarily, it strengthens the employment stability of individuals nearing retirement age, guaranteeing them effective protection against unjustified termination. At the same time, it forces employers to plan their HR policies more carefully, as personnel decisions must take into account the expanded scope of protection.
In the long term, the resolution may influence the way fixed-term contracts are concluded and HR risk management in enterprises, encouraging more thoughtful and long-term employment strategies.
Summary
The Supreme Court's resolution of September 30, 2025, has significant implications for labor law practice. After years of interpretative disagreements, the Supreme Court clearly ruled that pre-retirement protection also applies to fixed-term contracts, regardless of their planned termination date. This ruling not only resolves the legal dispute but also confirms that the role of labor law is to protect employees—particularly during a period when employment stability is crucial to social security.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of November 13, 2025.
Author:
Series editor:
