A €50,000 award on a one-year contract: when an unlawful summary dismissal gets expensive

On 22 September 2026, the Court of Appeal of The Hague upheld a fair compensation (billijke vergoeding) of €50,000 gross for an employee who was summarily dismissed during sick leave on a one-year contract. Yet the court itself put his actual loss of income at just €4,550 gross. Such an award on a short contract is exceptional.

The facts

The employee joined online travel company Prijsvrij Vakanties on a one-year contract in July 2024, earning €5,500 gross a month. In December he developed serious eyesight problems and called in sick; a chronic muscle disease was later diagnosed. The company doctor advised against any reintegration.

The employer doubted his illness from the start, partly because he kept running. It suspended his wages, demanded he come to the office against medical advice and hired a private investigator to follow and photograph him. Two days after he ran the Rotterdam Marathon in April 2025, he was dismissed with immediate effect for allegedly misleading the employer and the company doctor.

No urgent reason

The courts found no urgent reason (dringende reden) for summary dismissal. He had told the company doctor about his running and the employer had known about this from the start. On appeal, the employer no longer even disputed that he was genuinely unfit for work.

Compensation

He received his salary for the remaining contract term (€8,250) and the transition payment (€1,820). On top of that came €50,000 for the employer’s seriously culpable conduct: an unjustified wage suspension, disproportionate surveillance that invaded his privacy, and dismissal at a moment of vulnerability.

The court acknowledged that the contract would have ended on 30 June 2025 and would probably not have been renewed. His real income loss was about €4,550. But compensating only that loss would have no deterrent effect, especially as the employer showed little insight into its conduct at the hearing. The court therefore also compensated potential income loss after the contract’s end date, since the employer’s conduct may have hampered his recovery and reintegration.

Why this is remarkable

This sits uneasily with the system. The legislative history of the Work and Security Act (WWZ) states that fair compensation cannot be punitive. In New Hairstyle (HR 30 June 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1187), the Supreme Court held that the amount depends on all circumstances, with the consequences of the dismissal as the most important factor. That includes the ‘value’ of the contract: the income loss and how long the contract would have lasted. A preventive effect is recognized, but the amount remains tied to the damage.

Here, the court valued the contract at €4,550 and then awarded eleven times that, mainly for deterrence and for loss after a contract that would have ended within three months. That comes close to the punitive damages the legislator wanted to avoid.

Cassation?

Either party can still appeal in cassation until 22 December 2026. The question would be whether deterrence can push fair compensation this far above the actual loss. Until the Supreme Court has spoken, if it is asked to, this remains the Appeal Court’s view.

What this means for you

• A fixed-term contract still protects you. Without an early termination clause, your employer cannot end it early unless it can prove an urgent reason.
• Be open with the company doctor. The doctor, not your employer, assesses what you can and cannot do.
• Act fast. Challenge a summary dismissal within two months and seek advice straight away.
• Keep expectations realistic. Severance on short contracts is usually modest; this case is the exception.

Need advice?

The Legal Expat Desk helps international employees in the Netherlands with dismissal and sickness absence. Our services are provided by the employment lawyers of GMW advocaten. Feel free to contact us for a first assessment, in English.

Source: Court of Appeal of The Hague, 22 September 2026, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:2847, upholding Subdistrict Court Rotterdam, 16 September 2025, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2025:11850.