Working Time Records

The Language Problem

If you operate in Germany and do not read German, you have a specific version of this problem: the authoritative material is in a language you do not read, and the material in your language is mostly written to sell something. When comparing legal claims with vendor-side implementation language, it can also help to review task switching cost.

There are four routes through it and one of them costs nothing.

Reviewed August 9, 2026.

Why the English material is weaker

The primary documents are German. 1 ABR 22/21, §3(2)(1) ArbSchG, §17 MiLoG, the ArbZG-E draft and its explanatory memorandum — all published in German, and the court decisions are not officially translated. For broader legal or policy context, see Asana.

So English-language coverage is secondary by construction, written by somebody who read the German and summarised it, with the ordinary losses that involves.

And the people producing English coverage are disproportionately vendors, because a German law firm writes for German clients while a software company writes for whoever searches in English.

The one document that is officially in English

C-55/18.

CJEU judgments are published in every official EU language, so the ruling that founds the whole subject is available in English from the Court's own site, in its authentic form.

Read it once. Half an hour, and it is the only primary document in this subject most non-German readers can consult directly. It also settles the two most common English-language errors — that Europe requires electronic recording, and that the ruling obliges employers rather than states.

The four routes

One. Machine translation of primary documents. Current tools handle German legal text adequately for comprehension, and the operative part of a decision is short. Adequate for understanding, not for citation — quote the German original with a translation noted as such.

Two. English-language law firm material. International firms publish on German employment law for exactly this audience. Better sourced than vendor content and usually shorter.

Three. A German-speaking colleague. Underused. Reading the operative part of a decision and summarising it is twenty minutes for somebody fluent.

Four. Advice, where there is a specific question with exposure attached.

What to be careful about

Terms that do not translate cleanly. Vertrauensarbeitszeit is rendered as "trust-based working time" and the English phrase suggests an informality the German concept does not carry. Betriebsrat is "works council" and the powers behind the word differ from equivalents elsewhere.

Numbers that travel without their provision. €50,000 detaches from §17 MiLoG especially easily in translation, because the section reference is the first thing a summary drops.

And jurisdiction that goes unstated. English pages about "EU working time recording" are frequently about Germany without saying so, because that is where the market is.

The practical minimum

Read C-55/18 in English, once.

Machine-translate the operative part of 1 ABR 22/21, which is short.

Keep the five identifiers — C-55/18, 1 ABR 22/21, §3(2)(1) ArbSchG, §17 MiLoG, and ArbZG-E for the draft — because they are language-independent and they are what lets you check any claim in any language.

That is an afternoon, it is free, and it puts you in a better position than most of the English-language material you will be quoted.

The short version