jump to main content
Legal
14. Apr 2026
RAin Lena Hunger

Repayment clauses in advanced training agreements – Legal classification and recent rulings

The assumption of the costs of advance training by employers is a key instrument in personnel development. To safeguard the investment in the employee, frequently, repayment clauses are agreed; these commit the employee to repay the costs of the advanced training in the event that they terminate the employment relationship prior to the end of the contractually agreed commitment period. Such clauses are generally legally permissible, however, they are subject to strict requirements.

Legal bases and validity checks

Repayment clauses in advanced training agreements usually constitute general terms and conditions (GT&Cs) and are, therefore, subject to a test of reasonableness of the contents in accordance with Section 305 ff. of the Civil Code (Bundesgesetzbuch, BGB). According to settled case law, these clauses would only be effective if the following requirements have been met:

  • The repayment clause must be linked to the employee leaving the company prematurely within a specified commitment period.
  • Furthermore, the specific measure must constitute a benefit-in-kind for the employee, for example, through better job prospects or higher pay.
  • The length of the commitment period must be in reasonable proportion to the duration and quality of the advanced training as well as to the benefits accruing to the employee.
  • Moreover, the repayment obligation must decrease over time on a pro rata basis (proportional reduction).
  • Furthermore, a repayment clause would only comply with Section 307(1) sentence 2 BGB and, thus, not constitute an unreasonable disadvantage if:
     
  • it is clear and transparent,
  • the costs are clearly identified in terms of the amount of and eligibility for repayment, and
  • the type, basis of the calculation as well as any and all of the individual cost items are specified so that the employee is able to assess the payment risk. 
  • The clause must describe the factual requirements and legal consequences so precisely that, for the user, no scope is created for an unjustified assessment; any avoidable ambiguities would result in the clause becoming invalid.
  • Furthermore, repayment clauses must not disproportionately restrict the freedom to choose one’s occupation or profession - this is protected under Article 12(1) of Germany’s Basic Law. 

Please note

A commitment is permissible only if it appropriately takes into account the interests of both parties to the agreement. In standard contract forms, a repayment obligation that is not linked to the reason for termination will therefore generally be ineffective. Weakening the relevant clause in order to preserve its validity is not permitted; invalid clauses will be omitted without replacement (Section 306 BGB). Consequently, the repayment clause must differentiate by providing a reason for the termination.

Differentiation by reason for termination

For employers, the termination situation that can be considered as triggering repayment is (generally solely) (extra)ordinary termination with notice on grounds of conduct. Termination by the employer during the probationary period, in the absence of conduct by the employee in breach of contract, would not be an excuse to require repayment.

Please note

By contrast, in case law, linking repayment to failing an exam or to premature termination, for example, has been regarded as admissible if the reason lies solely within the employee’s sphere of responsibility and risk. In the context of an apprenticeship contract, a repayment agreement would in any case be ineffective. 

An obligation to repay advanced training costs may generally arise on the part of the employee if they terminate the employment relationship by resigning voluntarily before the end of the agreed commitment period, and if this resignation was not due to reasons that lay in the employer’s sphere. Then again, according to the Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht, BAG) in its ruling of 1.3.2022 (case reference:  9 AZR 260/21), a repayment clause would be ineffective if admittedly it required the employee to reimburse the advanced training costs, yet the employee had in fact terminated the employment relationship prior to the end of the commitment period because, through no fault of their own, they were permanently unable to perform the work as per the contract. In such cases, the employer bears the business risk that its investment in advanced training will not pay itself off.

Recent new ruling - Reasons attributable to employees

In a recent ruling of 21.10.2025 (case reference: 9 AZR 266/24), the BAG fleshed out its case law on repayment clauses. The subject matter of the ruling was the wording of a clause that linked a repayment obligation to a voluntary resignation “for reasons that were attributable to the employee”. The BAG considered this wording to be non-transparent within the meaning of Section 307(1) sentence 2 BGB because it was open to several interpretations including, in particular, one such where it would be impossible for the employee to continue the employment relationship on account of a permanent inability to perform her work through no fault of her own (e.g., due to illness). “Accountability” could be understood here as “fault” within the meaning of Section 276 BGB. According to the BAG, the same applies in cases where an employee terminates the employment relationship due to a permanent incapacity for work that is attributable solely to her own negligent conduct. Even the possibility of such scope would result in the clause being ineffective. 

Conclusion

Repayment clauses in advanced training agreements still constitute an effective instrument for safeguarding employer investments. However, their effectiveness necessitates careful drafting of the contract, taking into account current case law. The key assessment criteria are the test of reasonableness of the contents in accordance with Section 305 ff. BGB as well as appropriate consideration of the balance of interests between the employer and the employee. Clauses where the wording is general and non-transparent usually fail to meet these requirements and result in them becoming invalid, to the disadvantage of the employer.