The admissibility of fixed-term employment relationships is fundamentally regulated in the Part-time and Fixed-Term Employment Act (TzBfG). According to § 14 para. 4 TzBfG, the effectiveness of the fixed-term employment contract must be in writing. According to a decision of the Seventh Senate of December 21, 2005 ( 7 AZR 541/04 ), the written form requirement applies not only to the calendar limitation, but also to the purpose limitation. According to § 3 para. 1 movement 2 2 alt. TzBfG, a fixed-term employment contract exists if its duration results from the type, purpose or nature of the work. In the case of a fixed-term contract, the parties make the termination of the employment relationship dependent on the occurrence of a future event, the occurrence of which they consider to be certain; only the point in time at which the event will occur is uncertain. A purpose limitation therefore requires that the parties have agreed on the purpose of the employment contract. Since the description of the purpose of the contract replaces the date or time in the case of a time limit, the purpose of the contract must be agreed in writing. § 14 Abs. 4 TzBfG subjects any fixed-term employment contract to the written form requirement without restriction. The Senate further decided that an employee who wants to assert the ineffectiveness of a fixed-term employment contract must, in accordance with Section 17 Sentence 1 TzBfG, file an action with the labor court within three weeks of the agreed end of the fixed-term employment contract for a declaration that the employment relationship is terminated due to the time limit has not ended. A fixed-term employment relationship ends in accordance with Section 15 Para. 2 TzBfG upon achievement of the purpose, but at the earliest two weeks after receipt of written information from the employer about the time the purpose was achieved. The Seventh Senate also dealt with the question of the written form requirement in a judgment of July 26, 2006 ( 7 AZR 514/05 ). The Senate has decided that the written form requirement of Section 126 Para. 2 Sentence 2 BGB, according to which the parties must sign a contract on the same document, is sufficient if the employer offers to conclude a fixed-term employment contract in a letter signed by him and addressed to the employee and the employee does so accepts the contract offer by signing the same document. With this decision, the Seventh Senate has abandoned the case law of the Reich Court, according to which the requirements of Section 126 Para. 2 Sentence 1 BGB was only sufficient if the legal declarations resulting from the agreement of the parties involved were covered in their entirety by the signatures. The Seventh Senate has thus followed the case law of the Federal Court of Justice on the written form requirement for long-term rental agreements in § 566 BGB old version. The Federal Court of Justice stated that strict adherence to the Reich Court’s opinion was difficult to convey to contractual partners who were not legally trained and resulted in a huge number of rental agreements not being in writing. The Seventh Senate decided that these considerations also apply to the provisions in Section 14 Paragraph. The Seventh Senate decided that these considerations also apply to the provisions in Section 14 Paragraph. The clarification, proof and warning function is satisfied if the employee signs the offer signed by the employer to conclude a fixed-term employment contract on the same document with or without the addition “agreed” and can therefore be easily understood from the document whether and with what content a time limit was agreed. According to § 14 para. 2 Sentence 1 TzBfG, the calendar limitation of an employment contract without there being an objective reason is permitted for a period of up to two years. According to § 14 para. 2 Sentence 2 TzBfG, however, such a fixed-term contract is not permitted if a fixed-term or permanent employment relationship has already existed with the same employer. According to a decision of the Seventh Senate of October 18, 2006 (7 AZR 683/05), the ban on affiliation in Section 14 Para. 2 Sentence 2 TzBfG is not violated if an employee, after an unreasonable fixed-term employment, is again employed for an unreasonable limited period not with the same employer, but with a company affiliated with this employer. Previous employment only excludes an unfounded fixed-term contract if it was with the same contractual employer. This is the natural or legal person who concluded the employment contract with the employee. Even for employers affiliated with a group, the ban on affiliation only applies if the employee’s contractual partner in both contracts is the same natural or legal person. If various group-affiliated companies conclude fixed-term contracts with an employee without there being a change in the workplace, this contract design within the group does not violate the principle of good faith (§ 242 BGB), at least if the duration of the fixed-term contract overall does not exceed four years. According to § 14 para. 2 Sentence 1 TzBfG, a fixed-term employment contract can be extended a maximum of three times for a total period of two years. With a judgment of January 18, 2006 ( 7 AZR 178/05 ), the Seventh Senate decided that the prerequisite for an extension is: S. of § 14 para. 2 Sentence 1 TzBfG is that the extension agreement is made before the end of the term of the contract to be extended and only the contract term, but not the other working conditions, are changed. Otherwise, it is a matter of concluding a new employment contract, the term of which is limited without any objective reason in accordance with Section 14 Paragraph. 2 Sentence 2 TzBfG is inadmissible. The employee should be protected from the employer refusing to continue the employment relationship for a limited period of time in accordance with Section 14 Para. 2 Sentence 1 TzBfG makes it dependent on the employee accepting changed working conditions or on the employee being induced to conclude another fixed-term employment contract for no objective reason through the offer of other working conditions that may be more favorable to him. On the other hand, a consensual change to the working conditions is permissible under fixed-term law if it does not occur in connection with the extension of the contract and leaves the contract duration unaffected. If the parties therefore agree during the term of a contract pursuant to Section 14 Para. 2 Sentence 1 TzBfG, if the employment contract is fixed-term for no objective reason while maintaining the contract term, changes to the working conditions constitute a contract extension at a later date in accordance with Section 14 Paragraph. 2 Sentence 1 TzBfG is not contrary to this. A contract extension does not require that the conditions of the original contract remain unchanged for the entire duration of the contract term. In its judgment of July 26, 2006, the Seventh Senate made this case law not in connection with a contract extension, but rather before or after it, which is not of any importance in terms of fixed-term law. If the parties agree to extend an employment contract for one year without any objective reason during the term of an employment contract for one year and if they reach an agreement a few days later about the change in the contractually owed activity and the remuneration, this does not deprive the previously made agreement of the character of a contract extension within the meaning of of § 14 para. 2 Sentence 1 TzBfG. With its judgment of August 23, 2006 ( 7 AZR 12/06 ), the Seventh Senate continued its jurisprudence on the principles of contract extension. The Senate has approved an extension of a fixed-term employment contract for no objective reason in accordance with Section 14 Para. 2 Sentence 1 TzBfG provided that the agreement to postpone the termination date is made in written form before the end of the term of the previous contract and that the content of the contract otherwise remains unchanged. When extending the contract, the parties can only make adjustments to the contract text to reflect the legal situation applicable at the time of the extension. Such a permissible adjustment occurs if previously agreed changes to the contractual conditions are recorded in the document or the employer uses the changed contract content to fulfill a claim of the fixed-term employee that existed at the time of the extension. An extension is subject to Section 14 Paragraph. 2 Sentence 1 TzBfG does not apply if, in addition to postponing the termination date of the fixed-term employment contract, the content of the contract is also changed, even in favor of the employee. The extension of a fixed-term employment contract without any objective reason does not require the employee to have a recognizable connection to the previous fixed-term employment contract. The extension is also not a contractual condition. See §§ 305 ff. BGB. According to § 14 para. 1 Sentence 1 TzBfG, the limitation of an employment contract is permitted if it is justified by an objective reason. An objective reason for the fixed-term contract exists, among other things, if the employee is employed to represent another employee (Section 14 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 3 TzBfG). In its judgment of February 15, 2006 ( 7 AZR 232/05 ), the Seventh Senate confirmed that the factual reason for representation also exists if the temporary employee performs tasks that the employer assigns to a temporarily absent employee during his or her continued work could actually and legally be transferred upon his return. The factual reason for the representation according to Section 14 Para. 1 Sentence 2 No. 3 TzBfG can apply in three case constellations: It occurs when the representative takes over the tasks of the representative (direct representation). In such a case, the employer must demonstrate that, according to the employment contract, the representative has been entrusted with tasks that were previously assigned to the temporarily absent employee. A case of substitution also exists if the activity of the temporarily absent employee is not carried out by the representative, but by another employee or several other employees, but the representative was hired due to the temporary need for labor in view of the absence of the person being represented (indirect Stand-in). In order to prove the causal connection, the employer must generally demonstrate a chain of representation between the person represented and the representative. Finally, a factual basis for representation can also be assumed if the temporary employee performs tasks that the employer could actually and legally transfer to a temporarily absent employee if he or she continues to work unchanged and after his or her return. Here it is necessary that the employer makes a recognizable assignment of the representative’s activities to a temporarily absent employee who, upon his return, could be assigned the representative’s tasks by way of the right of direction. The Seventh Senate dealt with the factual basis of the court settlement (Section 14 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 8 TzBfG) in a judgment of April 26, 2006 ( 7 AZR 366/05 ). Following its case law on the legal situation in force before the TzBfG came into force, the Seventh Senate decided that the factual reason for the court settlement, in addition to the court’s involvement in the establishment of a fixed-term employment relationship, was the existence of an open dispute between the parties about the legal situation between them existing legal relationship at the time the settlement is concluded. This feature is intended to prevent the misuse of the provisions of Section 14 Para. 1 Sentence 2 No. 8 TzBfG. In particular, it is intended to ensure that the court settlement is not only used to record an agreement made by the parties to the employment contract prior to legal proceedings, through which a fixed-term employment contract is extended. According to § 14 para. 1 Sentence 2 No. 7 TzBfG, there is an objective reason for a fixed-term employment contract if the employee is paid from budget funds that are intended for temporary employment under budget law and he is employed accordingly. According to a decision of the Seventh Senate of October 18, 2006 ( 7 AZR 419/05 ), the regulation requires a specific allocation of budget funds for the completion of temporary activities. Merely allocating budget funds for the temporary employment of employees without a specific purpose does not meet the requirements of Section 14 (1). 1 Sentence 2 No. 7 TzBfG and does not represent an objective reason for concluding a fixed-term employment contract. The earmarking under house law must go beyond the mere allocation of funds; the resources must be intended for the completion of a temporary task. The factual reason for the budget limitation according to Section 14 Para. 1 Sentence 2 No. 7 TzBfG therefore requires, firstly, remuneration from budgetary resources, secondly, the budgetary determination of the funds for temporary employment and thirdly, appropriate employment of the employee. The Seventh Senate was also concerned with the issue of the temporal extension of §§ 57 a ff. HRG by the law on changes to service and labor law regulations in the higher education sector of December 27, 2004 (HdaVÄndG) to the period between February 23, 2002 The temporary employment contracts concluded on July 27, 2004 deal with academic and artistic staff at universities. In a decision of July 27, 2004 ( 2 BvF 2/02 ), the Federal Constitutional Court declared §§ 57 a ff. HRG as amended by the 5th HRGÄndG to be invalid. The Hda VÄndG then retroactively reinstated Sections 57a ff. HRG as amended by the 5th HRGÄndG. In its ruling of June 21, 2006 ( 7 AZR 234/05 ), the Seventh Senate classified the time extension as constitutional. In confirmation of its previous case law, the Seventh Senate has decided that the federal legislature pursuant to Article 74 para. 1 No. 12, Art. 72 Para. 2 GG has the legislative authority to regulate the temporary contract law for scientific and artistic staff at universities. This competence is based on the Article 74 para. 1 No. 12 GG on competing legislation in the field of labor law. This is also not limited by the framework competence under higher education law under Article 75 paragraph. 1 Sentence 1 No. 1a GG for general principles of higher education. These are not fundamentally restructured by temporary contract law. Rather, by reinstating Sections 57 a ff. HRG as amended by the 5th HRGÄndG, the federal legislature has built on the previous structures and preserved the system of fixed-term contracts without any objective reason with a maximum duration regulation. He was entitled to assume that maintaining this uniform federal regulation would ensure the preservation of economic unity in the federal territory in the sense of. Art. 72 para. 2GG is required. There are no constitutional concerns about the effectiveness of the norms governing the time limit. The extension of §§ 57 a ff. HRG by the HdaVÄndG to the fixed-term employment contracts concluded between February 23, 2002 and July 27, 2004 does not violate the requirement to protect legitimate expectations arising from the rule of law. The law only closed a regulatory gap and restored the legal situation that the parties to the employment contract had to assume when concluding the fixed-term employment contract. §§ 57 f para. 2 Sentence 1 HRG as amended by the 6th HRGÄndG made it possible to conclude a fixed-term employment contract until February 28, 2005, even for the six-year maximum duration of the fixed-term contract in Section 57 b Paragraph. 1 sentence 1 HRG nF. The contracting parties’ trust in the existence of the legal situation resulting from the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court that was worthy of protection could not arise in the period between this decision and the prompt action of the legislature. Because of the maximum duration it contains, the fixed-term regulation ultimately also meets the requirements of Directive 1999/70/EC of June 28, 1999.