News · Work & labour · Published 11 July 2026
Labour Court says employer may end job immediately when worker lacks permit
The ruling says an employment that violates the statutory work-permit requirement can be ended without following Sweden's Employment Protection Act.
DailySweden Editorial Desk
Updated 17:00 · 3 min read
Listen to this articleNarrated - 9:12
Sweden's Labour Court has ruled that an employer can end an employment immediately when the worker lacks a legally required work permit and the employment therefore conflicts with statute. In judgment AD 2026 no. 52, delivered on 8 July, the court held that the employer did not have to follow the Employment Protection Act when ending the job in those circumstances.
The dispute involved a deregistered Stockholm pizza business and a worker identified as SH. The court accepted that SH had been employed full time on a permanent contract from March 2023, with a monthly salary of SEK 24,000, and that the company ended his employment on 1 February 2024. The decisive question was whether the usual employment-protection rules governed that ending.
Evidence from an email exchange with the Swedish Migration Agency established, according to the judgment, that the worker did not hold a Swedish work permit. He was an Afghan citizen who said he had permanent residence in Greece. The court rejected the argument that leaving Sweden every three months and returning created a right to work: the rules allowing a limited stay did not provide an exemption from the separate work-permit requirement.
The ruling says an employment that violates the statutory work-permit requirement can be ended without following Sweden's Employment Protection Act.
The court said the employment was consequently contrary to law. It referred to the Aliens Act's sanctions: an employer can face a special charge and its representatives can risk criminal liability for employing a person who lacks the required permit; the worker can also risk liability. Once the company learned that the permit was missing, the court said it should have ended the employment immediately without using the Employment Protection Act procedure.
Work & labour essentials
That conclusion reversed the relevant part of the district court's outcome. The Labour Court found that the company had not breached the Employment Protection Act and was not liable for damages under that act. The judgment's published summary states the rule in narrow terms: it concerns an employee who actually lacks a prescribed permit, making the employment itself unlawful.
The decision does not say that every uncertainty, delayed application or immigration issue removes employment protection. Its reasoning depended on the court finding that a permit was required, no valid exemption applied and the worker did not have that permit. Case number B 75/25 is final in the Labour Court system and provides employers and workers with a new, citable application of the rule.
What happens now
DailySweden Editorial Desk
Original DailySweden guide desk. We write practical Sweden explainers for newcomers and update them when official guidance changes.
Contact the editorial desk ›
