Suspension from work: when it is allowed and what to watch out for (Article 83 of the LLR)

Under Article 83 of the LLR, at the employer's assessment and with a written order of the authorised person, the employee is removed from work with compensation amounting to 50% of the salary they received the previous month, until the decision on termination of the employment contract is made. So, the suspension is a bridge between the suspicion of a serious breach and the final decision — it is not a dismissal, but a temporary removal of the employee from the work environment while matters are cleared up.

Crucially, the law allows suspension only in four cases, if:

1. the employee, by their presence, endangers the life or health of workers or other persons, or assets of greater value are being damaged;
2. the employee's presence would adversely affect the employer's operations;
3. the employee's presence makes it impossible to establish liability for a breach of work obligations;
4. criminal proceedings have been initiated against the employee by a competent authority for a criminal offence committed at work or in connection with work.

From this provision arise three conditions that must be met simultaneously: the existence of one of the four grounds, a written order issued precisely by the authorised person, and compensation of at least 50% of the salary. Practice shows that employers most often err on the first two conditions.

The simplest, yet frequent, oversight is for the order to be issued by the wrong body. Article 83 requires a written order of the authorised person at the employer — as a rule the director or a person with duly delegated authorisation.

In a case before the Appellate Court in Bitola (ROŽ-289/18), a female employee in a public health institution was temporarily removed by a decision of the Management Board, and not by the authorised person. The court annulled the decision as unlawful precisely because it was made by a body without jurisdiction. The lesson is simple: even when the ground exists, the suspension falls if the order was signed by a body or person that has no authority to do so. Before any order is signed, one should check who the formally authorised person is at that moment.

This is perhaps the most instructive comparison in the entire case law under Article 83, because two almost identical cases end in opposite ways — and the difference is not in the amount of alcohol, but in the reasoning.

In the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic of North Macedonia (REV3-16/24 of 24 February 2025), an employee was called to work on a day off, informed his manager that he was under the influence of alcohol, and the breathalyser showed as much as 2.05 per mille. Despite that, the Supreme Court annulled the written removal order — because the employer gave no reasoned grounds as to how the employee's alcohol presence would adversely affect operations, which is a condition under Article 83 paragraph 1 point 2. In other words, the figure alone is not enough; the employer must specifically explain why the presence is harmful.

Conversely, in a case before the Appellate Court in Bitola (ROŽ-422/24 of 2025), an employee was breathalysed at 1.04 per mille, and the court upheld the order as lawful — because the employer reasoned that presence under the influence of alcohol, especially in the specific conditions of work in a mine, would adversely affect operations. The lower alcohol concentration here led to a lawful suspension, and the higher one — to an unlawful one, precisely because of the difference in the reasoning.

The lesson is crystal clear: the ground of „adverse effect“ (point 2) is not proven by per mille, but by concrete, reasoned justification of how and why the employee's presence endangers the work process.

Employers often reach for suspension at the first suspicion of theft or misuse. But suspicion alone, without evidence or without a proper procedure, regularly falls before the higher courts.

In the ruling of the Appellate Court in Skopje (ROŽ-173/24 of 22 January 2025), an employee was removed on suspicion of involvement in theft. The employer filed a criminal complaint, but there was no indictment against the employee, nor were disciplinary proceedings conducted, nor was the theft proven. The court annulled the order, because not a single one of the conditions of Article 83 was met. Similarly, in case ROŽ-704/21 (Appellate Court Skopje, 2022), the order was annulled because the employer did not prove that the presence would adversely affect operations or make it impossible to establish liability, nor did it cite a specific disciplinary breach — all the more so since the employee's access to the system was already blocked, so his „presence“ objectively could not cause harm.

These rulings show that suspension must not be used as an automatic reaction to suspicion. The employer must link the specific ground of Article 83 with concrete facts — for example, that it is precisely the employee's presence that hinders the clearing up of liability (point 3), and not merely that suspicion exists.

Unlike bare suspicion, initiated criminal proceedings for an offence committed at work or in connection with work are an independent and solid ground under Article 83 paragraph 1 point 4.

In case ROŽ-383/15 (Appellate Court Skopje), a civil servant was suspended after criminal proceedings were initiated against him for accepting a reward for unlawful influence — the court upheld the lawfulness of the suspension with 50% compensation. In another case, ROŽ-358/15 (Appellate Court Skopje, 2016), a cashier was removed due to initiated criminal proceedings for embezzlement, and again the court found that the measure was in line with Article 83. Here the difference from the previous group is clear: there are formally initiated proceedings by a competent authority, and not merely an internal suspicion of the employer.

It is also important not to confuse suspension under Article 83 with the dormancy of employment rights under Article 45 of the LLR. In a more recent ruling of the Appellate Court in Gostivar (ROŽ-491/25 of 2026), an employee under house arrest was placed in dormancy under Article 45, and the court noted that at the retrial it must be precisely established whether the ground for the issued decision is correct. A wrongly chosen legal basis can by itself bring down the decision.

From the analysis of these higher rulings emerges a clear checklist. Is the order written and issued precisely by the authorised person? Is the specific ground under Article 83 stated and reasoned (not merely „due to suspicion“), with facts showing how the presence has an adverse effect or hinders the establishment of liability? If the ground is criminal proceedings, have they actually been initiated by a competent authority? Is the compensation at least 50% of the previous month's salary (a higher percentage is allowed)? And has the correct legal instrument been chosen — suspension under Article 83, and not dormancy under Article 45 or vice versa?

For the employee, these same questions are also a roadmap for challenging: if any one of them is not met, the suspension order has a real chance of being annulled as unlawful, as the cited judgments show.