Verfahrenscheck · For Syndikusrechtsanwälte and in-house employment counsel

The termination you lose is rarely the one you misjudged. It is the one the file cannot reconstruct.

A procedural completeness review of the termination file — every step documented, every conclusion traced, every gap visible before action.

Verfahrenscheck reviews whether the file can still reconstruct the termination decision 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. The reasoning is reproducible, not generative: the ruleset is compiled offline from published BAG and EuGH case law into a tested, hash-locked engine, and no probabilistic step ever runs on your file.

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

Preview a real review's structure first — the full replay opens to qualified counsel. The Syndikus-Verfahrenscheck self-check needs no account, no intake, no obligation.

The procedural gaps that make sound decisions indefensible

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 file 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.

The exposure compounds at volume. In a restructuring or RIF — where Sozialauswahl, §17 KSchG Massenentlassungsanzeige timing (a live area since recent BAG/EuGH jurisprudence), and §613a BGB transfer questions stack across dozens of files — a single repeated procedural defect becomes a systemic one. The review is built to surface the pattern, not just the instance.

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 traceable to the file.

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.

If the file cannot show it, counsel inherits the gap.

What the review returns

A written completeness review of the file you submit — not a score, not a recommendation, not a verdict. For each of the six layers it states what is present, what is missing, and what cannot yet be reconstructed, with every finding tied to the contemporaneous record and every open gap listed explicitly — in the form an auditor, the works council, or external counsel would need it. Returned directly to counsel, typically within 72 hours. Priced as a fixed fee per file, agreed before the review begins — not hourly, and no surprise on the invoice.

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.

Does deploying this trigger works-council co-determination?

It is the first question your Betriebsrat will ask, and the one you would have to answer for them. We answer it before you do.

Co-determination under §87(1) Nr. 6 BetrVG attaches to technical systems capable of monitoring employee behaviour or performance. Verfahrenscheck is built to sit outside that trigger by design:

• No employee monitoring. The engine reviews a single termination decision file at the point of decision — it does not observe, score, rank, or track employees or managers over time.
• No behavioural profiling. There is no scoring layer and no performance signal generated about any person; the subject of review is the file, not the workforce.
• Counsel-controlled invocation. The review runs when counsel submits a matter, not as an always-on system embedded in the employment workflow.

Where a deployment nonetheless touches §87(1) Nr. 6 — that judgment is the deployer's — we provide a Betriebsvereinbarung scaffold setting out purpose, data categories, retention, and access, so the co-determination conversation starts from a draft rather than a blank page.

Security & data posture — what is true today, and what is on the roadmap

Stated plainly, because this buyer checks. We do not claim certifications we do not hold.

• True today — architectural, not promissory: EU / Germany data residency; no runtime cloud inference (the deterministic engine runs no probabilistic step on a client matter); on-device local deployment, so for organisations with additional security requirements the file never leaves your perimeter; AVV (Art. 28) and DPIA (Art. 35) templates; role-based access, retention and deletion controls; an immutable decision trace — timestamps, versions, decision history.
• On the roadmap, stated honestly: SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 are planned, not yet held. In the interim, local deployment keeps the data inside your own controls rather than asking you to trust ours.

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.

Where we are, stated plainly

The engine is deterministic and hash-locked today — that part is not early. What is early is our commercial footprint: we are calibrating the review with a deliberately small circle of senior in-house counsel, and we are selective about who helps shape the standard. Confidentiality cuts both ways — we do not trade on your name. The rigour of the file is the reference, not a logo wall.

Start before the file becomes the only witness

Three steps, each asking more of the file and nothing of your privilege. Start wherever you like — the decision stays yours throughout.

1. Preview a sample decision file

   A fully de-identified review, end to end — judge the structure before you trust the method. One click, nothing to submit.

   Preview a sample decision file →

2. Run the Syndikus-Verfahrenscheck

   A structured self-assessment of your own file's reconstructability against the same completeness gates. No submission, no matter detail.

   Take the Syndikus-Verfahrenscheck — 3 min →

3. Submit a live matter

   One real file. De-identified locally at intake; documented completeness review at a fixed fee per file, typically within 72 hours.

   Submit a live matter →

Or discuss deployment — local deployment available for organisations with additional security requirements.

De-identified locally at intake — privilege preserved under §203 StGB / §43e BRAO. No account to start.