Employees Stranded Abroad - Who Bears the Compensation Risk?

I. Introduction

In today’s interconnected working world, employees are increasingly spending time abroad – whether on business trips, on vacation, or within modern “workation” models. At the same time, the global political situation is volatile: sudden airspace closures, geopolitical escalations, or unforeseen strikes can make a timely return to the contractual place of work impossible within hours.

For HR practice, this raises a pressing question: who bears the financial risk of lost working time when the employee is willing to work but physically unable to return?

II. The Basic Rule: The Employee’s Commuting Risk

Under German employment law, the core principle is: “No work, no pay” (Section 326 (1) BGB). As a rule, the transport and commuting risk lies in the employee’s sphere. The employee is obliged to provide their work at the agreed place of performance.

Private holidaysIf a disruption occurs during a private trip, remuneration claims usually fail.

• Section 616 BGB: A “temporary prevention from work” typically does not apply, because a border closure is not a reason “inherent in the person” of the employee, but an external, objective event (part of the general life risk).

• Section 615 BGB: The employer’s default of acceptance is excluded, because the employee cannot offer performance at the correct place (Section 269 BGB).

Special case: workation

If the employee cannot physically travel back but can continue to work remotely from the place of stay, there is no impossibility. The entitlement to remuneration remains in place, provided that the work can lawfully be carried out from abroad (tax and social security compliance).

III. A Different Result for Business Trips

The situation is entirely different if the failed return occurs in the context of an employer‑initiated stay abroad.

Sphere theory

By sending the employee abroad, the employer creates the specific travel risk. The impossibility of returning therefore falls within the employer’s organisational sphere.

Analogous application of Section 670 BGB

The loss of remuneration is treated as a “task‑specific incidental damage”. The employer must put the employee in the position they would have been in had the damage not occurred – the obligation to continue paying salary remains.

Duties of care (Section 241 (2) BGB)

The employer’s duty of care is heightened. They must actively support stranded employees (for example rebookings, emergency accommodation).

Checklist for HR: “Employee Stranded Abroad”

If an employee is stuck abroad, the following checklist supports a legally sound and pragmatic handling of the case:

1. Status clarification & documentation

•  Clarify the scenario: Is this a business trip, workation, or private holiday?

•  Request evidence: Ask for proof of flight cancellations, official orders, or medical certificates (in case of quarantine).

•  Notification duty: Did the employee inform the company without undue delay?

2. Assessment of workability (remote option)

•  Role profile: Can the work temporarily be performed digitally from abroad?

•  Equipment: Does the employee have the necessary IT infrastructure (VPN, hardware, data protection) on site?

•  Legal framework: For longer periods, are there risks regarding tax law or social security obligations in the host country?

3. Remuneration & time recording

•  For business trips: Ensure continued payment of remuneration; book additional overnight stays as travel expenses.

•   For private holidays: Consider whether overtime can be reduced, unpaid leave granted, or – by mutual agreement – future holiday entitlement brought forward.

•  Mutual agreement: Record any arrangements on time recording in writing (an email is usually sufficient).

4. Duty of care & support (especially on business trips)

•  Return options: Have Travel Management check alternative routes or evacuation flights.

•  Advances: Grant travel expense advances for extended hotel stays or urgent purchases.

•  Communication: Line managers should check in regularly to reduce psychological stress for the employee.

Conclusion

While private trips are primarily governed by the principle of personal responsibility, the company bears full responsibility for the “foreign travel risk” in the case of business trips. Clear communication and flexible remote‑working solutions are often the most effective way to avoid legal disputes.