LAG Thuringia: Vacation must be granted for at least two weeks in a row.

The suitcases are packed, the flights home or to that long-awaited dream destination are booked. For international professionals , expats, and diplomats, whose families often live thousands of kilometers away, annual leave is far more than just a short break from the office. It's a rare opportunity to reconnect with home, spend quality time with loved ones, and recharge for the demanding workday back in Germany. However, in many personnel departments and HR teams, concerns about staffing shortages arise as vacation planning begins. This often results in informal, rigid company policies: "We generally don't approve more than two weeks of leave at a time." The Thuringian State Labor Court has unequivocally clarified in a recent ruling that such blanket limits are legally on extremely shaky ground and that employers are taking considerable risks by imposing them.

Aspects of global mobility and international recruiting depend on Germany remaining an attractive place to work for highly qualified academics and young professionals. This includes a reliable and legally secure working environment that respects the legitimate need for rest and recuperation of employees. The recent ruling demonstrates that standard internal workforce planning solutions quickly reach their legal limits when they undermine minimum legal standards.

The legal principle: Recovery only works in one go.

The legal basis for all vacation planning in Germany is enshrined in the Federal Vacation Act (BUrlG). According to Section 7, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 of the BUrlG, vacation ... Vacation leave must generally be granted in one continuous period . The law is based on the clear principle that the medical and psychological purpose of recovery can only be sustainably achieved if employees are released from work for an extended, uninterrupted period. Splitting vacation time is expressly intended by the legislator as an exception. According to Section 7, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2 of the Federal Vacation Act (BUrlG), it is only permissible if urgent operational needs or reasons relating to the employee's personal circumstances make a division absolutely necessary. If the vacation cannot be taken in one continuous period for these reasons, and the vacation entitlement exceeds twelve working days, then one of the vacation periods must comprise at least twelve consecutive working days – i.e., two full weeks.

Many companies mistakenly interpret this regulation as a kind of upper limit and conclude that granting two consecutive weeks of vacation fulfills the legal requirement and that longer vacation requests can be categorically rejected. The courts have now put a clear stop to this misconception. Rigid guidelines regarding the maximum length of consecutive vacation periods reverse the legal principle and unlawfully turn the statutory exception of splitting vacation time into a company rule.

The decision of the Thuringian Regional Labor Court: Individual case review overrides the general rule

In the case decided by the Thuringian State Labor Court ( decision of March 2, 2026, file no. 4 Ta 15/26 ), an employee requested three consecutive weeks of vacation . The employer refused permission, citing company policy that generally never grants more than two weeks of vacation at a time . The court clarified that such a general reference to staffing levels or standardized operational procedures is by no means sufficient to deny the right to consecutive vacation .

The term "urgent operational needs" as defined in Section 7 Paragraph 2 of the Federal Vacation Act (BUrlG) does not include abstract staffing shortages that fall under general entrepreneurial risk. If employers wish to reject or reduce a longer vacation request, they bear the full burden of proof. In our consulting practice, we consistently emphasize that companies must document in detail in each individual case precisely why a significant and unreasonable disruption to operations is imminent during the requested period and why this disruption cannot be mitigated through organizational measures such as the redistribution of tasks or the temporary deployment of substitute staff. Since the employer failed to conduct this substantiated case-by-case review in the present instance, the employee was successful.

Effective legal protection: Vacation by preliminary injunction

Of particular concern for HR practices and corporate immigration departments is the procedural enforcement, which the Thuringian Regional Labor Court (LAG Thüringen) has confirmed in this case. Since vacation time is inherently time-bound, it often cannot be meaningfully rescheduled after the desired period has expired; granting it later or providing financial compensation usually does not constitute adequate redress for the lost rest and relaxation.

The court therefore ruled that the right to vacation leave can be enforced by way of preliminary legal protection pursuant to Sections 935 and 940 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). Although this effectively prejudges the main issue, it is permissible to ensure effective legal protection. This significantly increases the pressure on employers: those who categorically reject vacation requests from international specialists without a thorough legal review risk short-notice expedited proceedings before the labor court, which involve considerable litigation risks and significant bureaucratic effort.

Conclusion: What employers and expats need to know now

The decision of the Thuringian Regional Labor Court protects the legitimate interest of highly qualified foreign professionals to take extended, continuous vacation periods for trips home. For companies, this sends a clear signal to rethink their practices: Informal "two-week rules" must be thoroughly re-evaluated. HR departments must move away from blanket rejections and instead establish transparent, objective criteria for prioritizing vacation requests. As a specialized law firm, we are happy to assist you in drafting your internal vacation policies and employment contracts in a legally sound manner and in accordance with current case law, thus preventing protracted disputes and legal proceedings from arising in the first place.