Inadmissibility of dismissal of a civil servant solely because of a change in the name of the authority or position: key guidelines for law enforcement

10 February 2026 - Publication

The process of reformation of state authorities has become a common instrument of public administration. It involves structural renewal, revision of staffing tables, the merging of divisions and their renaming. At the same time, technical changes are often accompanied by personnel decisions, which are presented as “reductions” although there are no actual grounds for such decisions. That’s why it is important to distinguish real organizational transformations and formal changes to avoid mistakes in law-enforcement practice.

The law directly requires termination of the civil service only if functions of an authority are actually and significantly changed or competences which are attached to the position are eliminated. The formal change in the name of department, a reorganization of division or technical update of the internal structure without changing the content of the work do not create legal grounds for dismissal. Moreover, in the event of reorganization that does not involve the elimination of functions, the authority is obliged to ensure continued employment for a civil servant. It means offering an equal position, or if none is available, a lower position, comply with procedural deadlines and justify the reasons for the personnel decision. Otherwise, the dismissal loses its legal legitimacy.

The Supreme Court has articulated the indicative legal position in case No 540/7297/21. The Court clearly distinguished the real and formal changes, emphasizing that the dismissal may be justified only if “the functions performed by the position are significantly changed or eliminated”. The Court directly highlighted that “only changing the name of authority (or structural division of authority) or name of position of civil servant… cannot be a proper and sufficient ground for dismissal”.

In this case it was established that no real reduction has taken place since the position held by a claimant was not eliminated as well as legal management functions were transferred to the successor, rather than terminated altogether. In other words, the changes were purely formal in nature and could not serve as grounds for terminating the civil service.

These approaches of the Supreme Court have real significance for the practice of state authorities. They oblige the employer to assess not only the formal side of the changes, but also their actual content. If a structural division continues to perform its functions, the structure is not being reduced or is even expanding and only the name or internal organization of work is changed, there are no grounds for dismissal. It is not a technical detail, but a key safeguard that ensures the predictability of personnel decisions and protects the professional corps of the civil service.

During a period of active changes in the public sector, such positions of the Supreme Court have the practical importance. They set the direct guidelines for personnel decisions, because the structure changes should assess not only the formal side of the changes, but also their actual content.  The court practice consistently highlights that the grounds of dismissing should be objective and be confirmed by real circumstances to maintain a balance between the interests of the state and guarantees for its employees.