Enforcing jurisdiction
Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation

Court case 10 Sa 2130/19 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2020)

Court Ruling
DPA ArbGBerlin4 June 2020Germany
final
Court Ruling

Privacy enforcement record

This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

A court ruled that an employee at a radiology practice didn't have to use a fingerprint time-tracking system. This is significant because it shows that employers can't force employees to use biometric systems without proper consent.

What happened

The court decided that the employer's warnings to an employee for not using a fingerprint time-tracking system were unjustified.

Who was affected

The employee who refused to use the new fingerprint time-tracking system.

What the authority found

Both courts concluded that the employee was not obligated to use the fingerprint system, as it lacked a valid legal basis.

Why this matters

This ruling emphasizes that companies must respect employee privacy and consent when implementing new tracking technologies.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 88 GDPR
Art. 9(1) GDPR
Art. 9(2)(b) GDPR
Art. 4(14) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 4(14) GDPR
Art. 9(1) GDPR
Art. 9(2)(b) GDPR
Art. 88(GDPR)

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

National Law Articles
AI-identified
§ 26 Federal Data Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz - BDSG)
Decision AuthorityLAG Berlin-Brandenburg
Reviewed AuthorityArbG Berlin (Germany)

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 18 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, authority corrected.

Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

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

Ruling Date

4 June 2020

Authority

DPA ArbGBerlin

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Automatically normalized and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 10 Sa 2130/19 - Germany (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: