Three weeks of vacation at a time? Employers may not impose blanket limits

In a decision dated March 2, 2026 (Case No. 4 Ta 15/26), the Thuringian Higher Labor Court overturned a common assumption in workplace practice: employers may not impose blanket rules limiting annual leave to two consecutive weeks. The ruling provides important clarification - not only on the substantive law governing vacation entitlements, but also on the enforceability of such claims in preliminary injunction proceedings.

Under the statutory framework, annual leave is generally to be granted as consecutive, uninterrupted leave. Contrary to widespread practice, dividing vacation into separate periods is legally permissible only in exceptional circumstances - specifically where compelling operational reasons exist or where personal reasons attributable to the employee justify such a division.

In everyday business practice, disputes rarely arise over the basic division of vacation itself. Far more frequently, conflicts occur when employees request longer continuous periods of leave. The present case is a typical example.

The employee applied for vacation from March 1 through March 25, 2026, i.e., slightly more than three weeks. The employer rejected the request, referring to an alleged internal practice of granting no more than two consecutive weeks of vacation.

In the main proceedings, the employer was ordered to grant the requested leave. Given that compliance was uncertain and the vacation period was imminent, the employee additionally sought preliminary injunctive relief to ensure that she would be able to commence her vacation as planned and actually take the leave.

In the preliminary injunction proceedings, the Thuringian Higher Labor Court ultimately ordered the employer to grant vacation for the period from March 3 through March 25, 2026. No entitlement existed for March 1 and 2, as there was either no obligation to work on those days or the employee was unable to work due to illness. Moreover, vacation cannot be granted retroactively.

General references to staffing shortages or an alleged “company practice” are insufficient to justify the rejection of a specific vacation request. Employers must instead present specific, case‑by‑case reasons. Merely pointing to general operational bottlenecks will not suffice.

Legitimate grounds for denying a vacation request may include, for example:

As a rule, rigid policies (such as “no more than two consecutive weeks of vacation”) fail to meet these legal requirements.

This aspect of the decision is particularly relevant in practice, as vacation disputes often arise shortly before the requested leave is scheduled to begin.

Vacation entitlements may be enforced by way of a preliminary injunction. While interim relief is often denied to avoid anticipating the outcome of the main proceedings, vacation claims constitute a special category:

If access to preliminary injunctive relief were denied in such cases, employees would have little practical ability to enforce otherwise valid vacation entitlements. Employers must therefore be prepared for employees to seek - and obtain - court orders on short notice compelling the granting of vacation through interim relief proceedings.

The decision reaffirms the existing legal framework: blanket refusals - particularly those justified by statements such as “this is how it’s always been done” - are legally insufficient. Employers must conduct a concrete, individual assessment of each vacation request and provide a well‑reasoned justification if a request is denied. Where these standards are met, the risk of employees successfully enforcing vacation requests through preliminary injunction proceedings is significantly reduced.