Constitutional Court: General courts wrongly assessed the case of drunken teachers

We have already written about the case of the teachers whose employment was immediately terminated because of alcohol consumption in the workplace.[1]  The case was decided by the Supreme Court and the decision raised many questions not only among the professional public. The Constitutional Court has now taken up the case and has which has reprimanded the lower courts. [2]

The case involved two teachers who locked themselves in a staff room during class time, where there were empty and partially empty bottles of alcohol. They were subsequently caught by their colleagues. According to colleagues, both teachers showed signs of intoxication, so the school management asked them to take a breathalyzer test for alcohol. But they refused. After the confrontation, they left the school building, even though they were still supposed to teach, and subsequently had temporary sick leave issued retroactively. Based on these facts, the school immediately terminated the teachers’ employment.

The general courts closed the case, stating that it was an isolated incident and therefore immediate termination of employment was not appropriate. This assertion was confirmed by the Supreme Court, which saw no procedural defects in the proceedings. According to the court and established case law, immediate termination of employment is an exceptional measure. The Supreme Court did not rule out termination of employment for serious misconduct, but in this situation, in its opinion, there was no particularly gross breach of work duties. The mere refusal to take a breath test cannot automatically be considered such a violation.

In practice, the Supreme Court's decision meant that the refusal to take a breath test was a breach of work discipline, but did not rise to the level of a gross breach of work duties. Witness statements and empty alcohol bottles may not be sufficient evidence of drunkenness. According to the court, the profession of a teacher does not constitute a special circumstance. Finally, even unauthorized absence from work and unexcused absence will be covered by a retroactively issued sick note from a doctor.

However, the Constitutional Court found serious deficiencies in the way the general courts dealt with the evidence. Witness statements about drunkenness are indirect evidence, but the only direct evidence could be the result of a breathalyzer test, which the employees refused to take. In doing so, they themselves created an evidentiary obstacle for the employer, who was unable to objectively prove drunkenness, while the courts took subjective witness statements lightly. The courts should not have been overly formalistic about alcohol consumption in the workplace, but about drunkenness itself. The teaching profession should also have been taken into account. The defective procedure thus violated the right to a fair trial.

Immediate termination of the employment relationship is therefore also an option when an employee refuses to take a breathalyzer test that they are required to undergo. The court should evaluate the refusal to the detriment of the employee. Employers should be cautious in cases of isolated excesses, which the Constitutional Court classifies as situations where an employee consumes a small amount of alcohol during a work lunch and is subsequently able to perform their duties as if they had not consumed any alcohol. However, it remains the case that immediate termination of employment is only an exceptional tool of the employer and drunkenness or alcohol consumption in the workplace should be assessed according to the specific situation.

[1] https://cze-prod-emea.gtil-dxc.com/en/news/when-refusing-a-breath-test-is-not-enough-immediate-cancellation-or-another-procedure/

[2] Constitutional Court ruling of 3 September 2025, Case No. II. ÚS 2881/24