Art. 325 Bulgarian Labour Code: termination without notice

Art. 325 of the Labour Code (КТ) is among the most frequently applied and, at the same time, most disputed provisions in Bulgarian employment law. It brings together twelve different grounds on which an employment contract ends without either party owing notice. In practice, however, free access to structured analysis is scarce: most publications cover only mutual consent under para. 1, item 1, while the full text and the cassation case law remain behind a subscription.

In this analysis we set out all the grounds under Art. 325 КТ, the mechanism of termination by mutual consent and the established positions of the Supreme Court of Cassation (ВКС), clearly distinguishing verifiable case law from theses found only in secondary sources.

Legal framework: Art. 325 КТ

The general characteristic of the grounds under Art. 325 КТ is that termination occurs by operation of law (ipso jure), without either party owing notice and, accordingly, without compensation under Art. 220 КТ for failure to observe a notice period. This distinguishes the cases under Art. 325 from termination with notice under Art. 326 and Art. 328 КТ, where the period and its observance have independent legal significance.

It should be noted that for the ground under para. 1, item 9 the law sets an express proviso: termination is not permitted if the employer has other work suitable for the employee's state of health and the employee agrees to take it up. This makes item 9 one of the few grounds under Art. 325 where termination is not unconditional. Para. 2, for its part, refers to the specific case of Art. 68(6) КТ.

Termination by mutual consent (Art. 325(1), item 1)

Mutual consent is the most frequently applied ground under Art. 325 КТ. The law sets one essential requirement for validity: the consent must be expressed in writing. This is a form required for validity, not merely for proof, so a verbal agreement between the parties has no legal effect, even if it is established by other evidence.

The mechanism is set out in the law. The party that receives a proposal for termination by mutual consent must respond and notify the other party within 7 days of receiving it. Silence within this period has a precisely defined legal consequence: the proposal is deemed not accepted. This seven-day period relates exclusively to the reply to the proposal for mutual consent and should not be confused with the two-week period under Art. 345(1) КТ, which matters for the ground under item 2.

The other grounds under para. 1 (items 2-12)

Apart from mutual consent, Art. 325 covers a wide range of objective circumstances in which the employment relationship ends by operation of law. Many of them do not depend on the will of the parties, but on the occurrence of a particular legal fact: expiry of a term, the return of a replaced employee, a TELK decision that has come into force, or death.

Item 2 deserves particular attention: for it to apply, the employee reinstated by the court must fail to report to take up the position within the two-week period under Art. 345(1) КТ, which runs from receipt of the notice of reinstatement. This is one of the few grounds under Art. 325 where termination results from the inaction of the employee.

Current ВКС case law on Art. 325

Cassation case law on Art. 325 КТ is concentrated mainly on item 1 (mutual consent), where disputes most often arise over the form and the moment at which consent is reached. Here we distinguish the verifiable sources from the theses found only in secondary literature.

The leading and fully verifiable position is that written consent under Art. 325(1), item 1 cannot be proved by witness testimony. The written form requirement excludes witness testimony under Art. 164(1) of the Civil Procedure Code (ГПК), and the signature on the order certifies only service, not the will to terminate.

Apart from this decision, the legal literature consistently advances several more positions that express established practice, but whose specific court rulings cannot be found in the public registers with full details. We therefore set them out descriptively, without attributing specific numbers to them:

First, it is accepted that an order terminating the contract by mutual consent is merely declaratory (констативен), not constitutive (конститутивен). The practically important conclusion follows that any wrong legal classification in the order itself does not make the termination unlawful, provided the actual ground exists. Second, it is argued that the provision of item 1 does not require the application to expressly contain a date, but at the same time it is accepted that the mutual consent reached must also cover the date from which the contract terminates. Third, it is accepted that the employee's signing of the order does not in itself satisfy the elements of item 1. That requires prior consent expressed in writing.

Compensation and consequences of termination under Art. 325

Because termination under Art. 325 is without notice, compensation for failure to give notice under Art. 220 КТ is not due: the very scenario of Art. 220 presupposes a notice period, which is absent here. This does not mean, however, that the employee is left without any monetary rights.

The link between item 9 and Art. 222(2) КТ is expressly fixed in the law: the provision on compensation for illness refers directly to the ground under Art. 325(1), item 9. Therefore, on termination because of permanently reduced work capacity, the practitioner should also take into account this additional monetary right of the employee.

Practical advice for lawyers and employers

The great majority of disputes under Art. 325 КТ concentrate on mutual consent and can be prevented by documenting the will of the parties precisely. Below we summarise the minimum checklist for a valid termination under item 1.

Pravko is an AI assistant working on current Bulgarian legislation, including the Labour Code, and can quickly orient you in the legal framework of Art. 325 КТ. Features for searching case law are yet to be added. For a specific case, also see the user guide to the resignation letter (молба за напускане), as well as the professional analyses of the special protection under Art. 333 КТ and how to complete employment record books after the changes to the КТ.