Compensation following unlawful dismissal

The remitted proceedings concerned compensation, rather than reconsideration of whether the dismissal was lawful.

Korteriühistu Tallinna 32 (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu). On remittal, XX sought compensation from Korteriühistu Tallinna 32 for enforced absence from work. Unlawful dismissal and reinstatement had already been resolved. The court accepted the loss of earnings but limited compensation to one month’s average earnings on grounds of good faith and proportionality. Later, on 8 July 2016, Tartu Ringkonnakohus increased compensation while leaving the allocation of costs unchanged. Applying the historical version of employment law, the appellate court emphasised immediate compliance with reinstatement and reasonable steps to mitigate loss.

The claim was initially granted in part, awarding compensation equal to one month’s average earnings, with each party bearing its own costs. On 8 July 2016, Tartu Ringkonnakohus set the judgment aside only as to the amount of compensation and increased it. Each party continued to bear its own first-instance and appeal costs.