Repayment of training costs: why many clauses are invalid
- Jul 24
- 2 min read
Employers who finance expensive training do not want to lose the employee to a competitor right afterwards. That is why employment contracts or training agreements often contain a repayment clause (Rückzahlungsklausel). The German Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht, BAG) has once again struck down such a clause (judgment of 21 October 2025, case no. 9 AZR 266/24), as has the Cologne Regional Labour Court (judgment of 19 August 2025, case no. 7 SLa 647/24).
1. The Federal Labour Court: repayment after the employee's own resignation
In the BAG case, the employee had committed to stay for 24 months. If the employment ended earlier “for reasons attributable to the employee” (aus von der Arbeitnehmerin zu vertretenden Gründen), she was to reimburse a pro-rata share of the training costs. She resigned within the 24 months; the employer demanded its money back.
What are “attributable reasons”? The BAG saw several possible readings – for instance: Was it reasonable for the employee to continue the employment? Is there fault within the meaning of section 276 of the German Civil Code (BGB)? Or does it depend on whose sphere of risk the reason for termination falls into? None of these interpretations was clearly preferable. Since the employer had drafted the clause, the doubts went against it. The repayment claim failed.
The court also confirmed its line on permanent incapacity for work: a repayment clause is unreasonably disadvantageous if it triggers repayment even where the employee becomes permanently unable to work.
2. The Cologne Regional Labour Court: paid training time is working time
The Cologne Regional Labour Court (Landesarbeitsgericht Köln) ruled on a trainee fire officer (Brandmeisteranwärter) who resigned before the end of his three-year retention period. The repayment clause provided that, in addition to the training costs, he was to reimburse the remuneration he had received while released from his duties for the training.
The court did not follow this: completing the training was part of the work he owed, so the training time was paid working time – and paid working time cannot be reclaimed like an investment.
3. The consequence: the entire repayment clause is void
An invalid repayment clause is not trimmed back by the courts to what would just about be permissible; it falls away entirely. The employer then cannot reclaim the training costs at all. Employers therefore depend on particularly careful contract drafting.
Employees who receive a repayment demand should look closely at the contract wording – many older agreements use exactly the formulations that have now been struck down.
Unsure whether your repayment clause will hold?
Whether a repayment demand is enforceable almost always comes down to the exact wording of the clause.
If you want to make your training agreements hold up as an employer, or you are facing a repayment demand as an employee, I offer you a short, free initial assessment. In this call, we will clarify where you stand and which steps are worth taking.
