Working Time Records

What Is Binding Today

This is not legal advice. It is a summary of published court decisions and draft legislation, written for people who have been sent a sales email. Anything with consequences deserves a qualified employment lawyer. For a practical view of how organisations can translate recording duties into day-to-day workflows, see this resource.

Reviewed August 9, 2026. This area is in legislative motion — verify the status before relying on any of it. For broader legal or policy context, see Ars Technica.

The short answer

In Germany, employers are already obliged to record working time. Since September 2022. No transition period.

That obligation does not come from a law with "time recording" in its name. It comes from a court reading an existing law in light of a European ruling, which is why so much published material gets the status wrong.

The three things, separated

Binding: the CJEU ruling. Case C-55/18, 14 May 2019 — the CCOO case, brought by a Spanish trade union against Deutsche Bank. The Court held that member states must require employers to set up an objective, reliable and accessible system for measuring daily working time. It obliges states, not employers directly.

Binding: the BAG decision. Case 1 ABR 22/21, 13 September 2022. Germany's Federal Labour Court held that employers in Germany are already obliged, under a European-conforming reading of §3(2)(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (ArbSchG), to introduce a system for recording employees' working hours. Full reasons published 2 December 2022. No new legislation was needed and none was waited for.

And outside Germany the picture differs by state.

Not binding: the draft reform. The Federal Ministry of Labour published a first draft amendment to the Working Hours Act (ArbZG-E) in April 2023, proposing electronic recording as the standard, with exceptions and transition periods by company size. Its status is the single most misreported thing in this subject.

What follows practically

You must have a system now. Not from a future date — since September 2022.

Electronic is not currently mandatory. The BAG's reasoning does not require it; the draft would make it the default. Paper remains legally permissible and is increasingly treated with scepticism in practice.

Records must cover start, end and duration of daily working time, for everybody except a narrow set of exemptions.

And documentation duties under other laws already applied, independently — §17 of the Minimum Wage Act (MiLoG) for certain sectors, with fines up to €50,000, enforced by customs (Zoll), which audits actively and has imposed fines.

Why the confusion exists

Because a duty created by judicial interpretation looks less real than one created by a statute. People wait for the law with the obvious name, and it has not arrived.

And because almost everything written about this is published by companies selling time recording systems, who have an interest in the obligation sounding both settled and urgent. Some of their material describes the draft as though it were in force.

What to check yourself

Two minutes, and it settles most disputes about status.

A claim about the duty should cite 1 ABR 22/21 or §3(2)(1) ArbSchG. If it cites neither and says "from 2026", it is describing a proposal.

A claim about electronic recording should say whether it describes the draft. The word "expected" is doing the work in most of these sentences.

And a fine figure should name the provision. €50,000 under §17 MiLoG is a different thing from a general statement that fines exist.

The short version