In Slovakia, only if the employee is a protected whistleblower, meaning that a prosecutor or administrative authority has served you with notification that it has granted them protection. If consent is required and the Office has not granted it, the dismissal with notice is invalid. Consent is not required for other whistleblowers, but the employee may ask the Office to suspend the effect of the notice of dismissal, and you must demonstrate that it is unrelated to the report. Czech law does not provide for the authority's consent, but it prohibits retaliation. If, in a dispute, the employee presents facts indicating retaliation, the employer must demonstrate that the dismissal was objectively justified.
An employee previously raised concerns about invoicing irregularities, and the employer is now addressing their repeated lateness or the abolition of their position. Dismissal with notice on grounds unrelated to the report is possible. Under Slovak Act No. 54/2019 Z. z., whether the Whistleblower Protection Office’s consent is required depends on the protection the employee has. Consent is required only for a protected whistleblower. For others, the decisive issue is whether the employer can demonstrate that the dismissal is unrelated to the report.
When an employee is a protected whistleblower
An employee becomes a protected whistleblower if they have made a qualifying report of serious wrongdoing, requested protection and been granted it by a prosecutor or administrative authority. The authority informs the whistleblower, the employer and the Office in writing (Section 4(1) and Section 6(1)). The time of service is decisive:
The following quotation is reproduced in its original language:
[…] Doručením oznámenia o poskytnutí ochrany zamestnávateľovi sa oznamovateľ stáva chráneným oznamovateľom.
If the employer has not received such notification, the employee is not a protected whistleblower, even if they have made a report. Protection ends, for example, when the employment relationship ends or 3 years after the conclusion of criminal proceedings or administrative offence proceedings, provided the criminal proceedings did not end by referral of the case to another authority (Section 8(1)).
The Office’s consent before giving notice of dismissal
An employer may carry out an employment-related legal act affecting a protected whistleblower to which the employee does not consent only with the Office’s consent (Section 7(1)). Consent is not required if the act grants the employee an entitlement or if termination of employment results from a circumstance that does not depend on the employer’s assessment. The footnote to this provision gives examples including dismissal where the employer is dissolved or relocates, dismissal for medical unfitness established by a medical opinion, or dismissal because the employee does not meet the prerequisites or requirements for performing the work. Dismissal for redundancy, unsatisfactory performance or a breach of work discipline is not among the examples, so expect consent to be required in those cases.
In the application, the employer identifies itself and the employee and describes the intended act and its reasons (Section 7(2)). The Office allows the employee to comment and grants consent only if the employer demonstrates that the act has no causal connection whatsoever with the qualifying report (Section 7(3) and (5)). It decides simple cases without delay and other cases within 30 days. No appeal is permitted (Section 7(4) and (6)). The Act also protects the employer during the proceedings:
The following quotation is reproduced in its original language:
Od podania žiadosti zamestnávateľa o udelenie súhlasu úradu do právoplatného rozhodnutia o žiadosti o udelenie súhlasu zamestnávateľovi lehoty a skúšobné doby podľa osobitných predpisov […] neplynú.
The wording refers to time limits generally. The footnote cites only the probationary period under the Labour Code, while its references to civil service legislation also include time limits for disciplinary measures and immediate termination of civil service employment. The Act does not expressly state whether the provision also applies to the time limits for giving notice of dismissal for a breach of work discipline, namely 2 months from becoming aware of the grounds and no later than 1 year after they arose (Section 63(4) of the Labour Code, Act No. 311/2001 Z. z.). You should therefore submit the application as soon as possible. A notice of dismissal for which the Office has not granted consent is invalid (Section 7(8)), and the employer faces a fine of up to 100 000 euros (Section 19(3)). If a court declares the dismissal of an employee who enjoyed protection invalid, the statutory limit on compensation for lost wages does not apply either (Section 79(3) of the Labour Code).
Other whistleblowers and suspension of the effect of a notice of dismissal
If the employee does not have protected whistleblower status, the Office’s consent is not required. However, if they believe the notice of dismissal is related to their report, they may ask the Office to suspend its effect within 15 days of becoming aware of it. The Office suspends its effect if the employer fails to demonstrate within the specified time limit that the dismissal is unrelated to the report (Section 12(1) and (2)). The suspension ends 30 days after confirmation is served on the employee. If the court receives the employee’s application for an interim measure within that period, the suspension is extended until the court’s decision on that application becomes enforceable (Section 12(6)). Protection also applies where the employee approached the Office directly, as explained in the question whether an employee can go straight to the Office. For every whistleblower, therefore, document the grounds for dismissal using evidence created independently of the report. The article when the Office can suspend a whistleblower’s dismissal or reassignment discusses this in more detail.
In Czechia, the authority’s consent is not required
Czech Act No. 171/2023 Sb. on the Protection of Whistleblowers does not provide for the authority’s consent to dismissal with notice. However, it expressly classifies dismissal prompted by a report as a retaliatory measure (Section 4(1)), and the employer must not allow the whistleblower to be subjected to retaliation (Section 4(4)). If, in a dispute, the employee presents facts from which retaliation may be inferred, the employer must demonstrate that the measure was objectively justified by a legitimate aim and was proportionate and necessary to achieve that aim (Section 133a(2) of Act No. 99/1963 Sb.). A retaliatory measure may result in a fine of up to 1 000 000 Kč (Section 26(3) and Section 27(7) and (8) of Act No. 171/2023 Sb.), and the injured person is entitled to appropriate redress (Section 5).
We will assess the employee’s status and prepare an application for the Office’s consent or evidence demonstrating the actual grounds for dismissal as part of our whistleblowing and reporting system service. We will prepare the notice of dismissal itself and the associated procedure as part of our termination of employment service.
This answer provides general information on the law as at 3 October 2026. It does not constitute legal services or replace an assessment of an individual case. The details of your situation may differ. Book a consultation to discuss them.
