Verfahrenscheck · For Syndikusrechtsanwälte and in-house employment counsel

The termination you lose is rarely the one you got wrong. It's the one you can't reconstruct.

Procedurally complete. Documented. Reconstructable. Before you act.

Verfahrenscheck reviews whether a termination decision is procedurally complete, documented, and reconstructable before you act. We do not tell you whether the termination is lawful — we show whether the decision file can withstand scrutiny, and where it cannot. Every finding is tied to evidence. Every gap is explicit.

Statutes under review

• §102 BetrVG
• §17 KSchG
• §168 / §178 SGB IX
• §15 AGG
• §26 BDSG
• GDPR Art. 9

Counsel-vendor confidentiality regime

• §43e BRAO
• §203 (1), (3), (4) StGB
• GDPR

The procedural defects that void otherwise sound decisions

Most termination disputes are not lost because the underlying decision was unreasonable. They are lost because something in the file cannot be proven — a consultation was incomplete, a required step happened too late, similar cases were handled differently, or the reasoning exists only in someone's memory.

When a termination is challenged, the Arbeitsgericht's question is rarely "did the employer believe this was the right decision?" The question is:

Can the employer show how this decision was reached?

Verfahrenscheck reviews the file before that question is asked — checking §102 BetrVG consultation completeness and timing, §17 KSchG sequencing, §168 / §178 SGB IX where applicable, and §15 AGG consistency across comparable cases. You see where the procedure is complete, where it is not, and what remains unsupported.

How the engine is positioned under the EU AI Act

Posture, not legal opinion. Each deployer remains responsible for its own classification.

• Article 6(3) decision-support posture. Preparatory to a human assessment, not a replacement for it — positioned within the Article 6(3) carve-out, not as a high-risk AI system deployed in an employment decision.
• Article 14 human oversight, demonstrable by design. The audit trace records what the engine decided, what it deferred, and to whom — so Article 14 oversight is shown, not asserted.
• GDPR Art. 22 alignment, mapped to G6. Where any algorithmic component contributed, gate G6 requires employee notification, demonstrable human oversight, and a documented Art. 22 assessment.
• Deterministic runtime. No probabilistic step runs on a client matter. AI is used at design time only — offline, on no client file — to interpret BAG case law into a tested, hash-locked ruleset.

Each deployer remains responsible for its own AI-Act and GDPR Art. 22 classification of the use case in its environment.

Two tiers. One boundary.

The distinction matters.

The boundary is explicit. We never present one as the other.

Built for the two legal regimes counsel actually manages

Most vendors treat every matter as the same. They are not.

Verfahrenscheck handles these as distinct regimes because counsel already does.

Every conclusion traced. Every step documented.

The review reconstructs the file across six layers:

Where evidence is missing, the review says so. Where reasoning cannot be traced, the review says so. Where process cannot be shown, the review says so.

The gap is the finding.

Privilege-preserving by design — mapped to the regime you already operate under

For counsel-submitted matters, identifying employee data does not leave your environment. Matters are reviewed using a de-identified case structure generated locally at intake; the resulting report is returned directly to counsel.

Privilege preservation is built into the architecture rather than treated as a contractual promise — and the vendor is committed to the three regimes that govern lawful counsel-vendor engagement in Germany:

• §43e BRAO — the service-provider engagement framework that permits attorneys, including Syndikusrechtsanwälte, to engage external providers without breaching attorney secrecy, where the §43e conditions are met.
• §203 (1), (3), (4) StGB — Berufsgeheimnis. Vendor personnel are bound to the professional-secrecy obligation as mitwirkende Personen under §203(3), within the §203(4) framework for service-provider arrangements; the secrecy duty travels with the file.
• GDPR — AVV (Art. 28) and DPIA (Art. 35) templates available; EU/Germany data residency; no runtime cloud inference; on-device local deployment available for organisations with additional security requirements.

Human-accountable by design

There is no scoring. No recommendation. No automated termination decision. No black-box ranking.

Verfahrenscheck identifies completeness issues and evidentiary gaps.

The lawyer remains responsible for the decision. The human remains accountable.

A file external counsel can use immediately

External counsel should not have to reconstruct the file from scratch.

The output makes provenance, timing, evidence, approvals, and open gaps explicit.

The handoff is part of the product.

What this is not

Verfahrenscheck is not a drafting assistant, a research copilot, a summarisation tool, a recommendation engine, a legal verdict, or an automated decision-maker. It is a procedural completeness review of the existing record. If a legal conclusion is required, that belongs with a lawyer.

Start where your file is

Review a fully de-identified sample first. Then submit a live matter and receive a documented completeness review, typically within 72 hours. For organisations with additional security requirements, local deployment is available.