Court case 10 Sa 2130/19 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2020)
General GDPR enforcement action
This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
A German court ruled that an employee was not required to use a fingerprint time-tracking system at work. The court found that the system was not necessary and less intrusive methods were available. This decision protects employees' privacy by limiting the use of biometric data.
What happened
An employee refused to use a fingerprint time-tracking system, and the court ruled in favor of the employee.
Who was affected
The employee at a radiology practice who was asked to use a fingerprint system for time tracking.
What the authority found
The court decided that the employee was not obligated to use the fingerprint system because there were less intrusive ways to track work hours.
Why this matters
This ruling highlights the need for employers to consider privacy-friendly alternatives before implementing biometric systems. It sets a precedent for protecting employees' biometric data and ensuring that such systems are truly necessary.
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
The employer runs a radiology practice and until 1 August 2018 had been using printed time sheets to keep track of how many hours the employees had worked. The employee who is a party to the case has refused to use the new fingerprint time-tracking system, and continued to manually write down the worked hours on the old time sheets. The employer then issued several warnings to the employee, urging him to use the new system. On 5 October 2018, the employee received a first written warning from his employer, urging him to start using the fingerprint system. Despite the warning, he refused to do so and continued using the printed time sheets. On 26 March 2019, the employee received a second warning which threatened with the possibility of immediately terminating his employment if he continues to refuse using the fingerprint system. Were the employer's warnings rightfully issued, and the processing of the fingerprint data lawful in accordance with Article 9(2)(b) GDPR? Both courts decided that the employer had to remove the warnings issued towards the employee, and that the employee was not obliged to use the fingerprint system and therefore did not violate his duties. The courts first stated that the only possible legal grounds for the processing operation could be Articles 9(2)(a) or (b). As the employee clearly did not give his consent, the courts did not elaborate further on Article 9(2)(a). With regards, to article 9(2)(b), the first instance court (ArbG Berlin) carried out a three-step assessment, based on: - the suitability of the biometric procedure for the purposes of the employment relationship - whether there were less intrusive means of attaining the purpose - a comprehensive weighing of interests The court concluded that an employer's interest in biometric access control systems to areas with sensitive business, production, and development secrets would be more likely to prevail than in the context of a time-tracking system. Therefore, in this case th
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 10 Sa 2130/19 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 10 Sa 2130/19 - Germany (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: