What happens when a Lithuanian employee is injured at a construction site in Germany? The fact that the work is performed abroad does not, by itself, relieve the Lithuanian employer of its responsibility to organise and supervise safe work.
A recent decision of the Klaipėda Labour Disputes Commission in case No. APS-110-30663/2025 confirms that an employer’s occupational safety obligations do not disappear when an employee is temporarily posted to another country. In a case represented by ReLex, the Klaipėda Labour Disputes Commission held a Lithuanian employer liable for damage suffered by an employee who sustained a severe head injury while working in Germany.
The employee had been employed by the Lithuanian company as a finishing worker and was posted to Germany to carry out construction works. While working on mobile scaffolding, he fell from a height of approximately 1.6 metres, sustaining a traumatic brain injury, subarachnoid haemorrhage, brain contusion and a temporal bone fracture.
The State Labour Inspectorate subsequently identified the failure to ensure appropriate collective and/or personal protective measures and the safe organisation of work at height as causes of the accident, finding a breach of Article 19(2) of the Lithuanian Law on Safety and Health at Work.
The employer contested its liability, arguing that the employee had been provided with the required personal protective equipment, including a safety helmet and harness, had received occupational safety training and held a certificate authorising work at height. As the employee was not wearing the helmet at the time of the accident, the employer argued that his conduct constituted gross negligence and broke the basis for the employer’s civil liability. The employer also relied on the findings of the German police investigation, which had found no evidence of third-party involvement or breaches of occupational safety requirements at the scene.
The Commission took a different view. It found that the employer’s responsibility was not discharged by handing an employee a helmet and having him sign safety instructions. The employer was also required to exercise effective control over compliance with occupational safety requirements and to intervene when those requirements were not followed. The evidence showed that employees had routinely worked without helmets and that the person responsible for supervising the work had not required them to wear one.
This was decisive. The Commission found that the employer’s failure to exercise basic supervision constituted gross negligence and established the employer’s civil liability. The fact that the accident occurred in Germany did not alter that conclusion: the employee was performing work assigned by his Lithuanian employer during a posting, and the employer remained responsible for the safe organisation and supervision of that work.
At the same time, the Commission did not treat the employee as entirely faultless. He had been provided with a helmet, had been instructed to use it and nevertheless did not wear it. His conduct was therefore taken into account in assessing the extent of the damage. The Commission found that both parties had contributed to the consequences of the accident and reduced the recoverable damages by one third. Crucially, however, the employee’s own breach did not extinguish the employer’s liability.
The Commission ultimately awarded EUR 2,441.91 in pecuniary damages, consisting of additional medical expenses and lost income, and EUR 10,000 in non-pecuniary damages.
The decision draws a clear line between providing safety measures and actually ensuring safe work. An employer cannot satisfy its occupational safety obligations merely by issuing protective equipment and instructions. Where the employer knows that safety rules are not being followed, it must act.
For employers sending employees to work abroad, the case carries an equally practical point: a posting changes the place where work is performed; it does not, by itself, transfer the employer’s responsibility for the safe organisation and supervision of that work.
ReLex represented the employee in the proceedings.
ReLex
