On July 18, 2025, the Administrative Court of Hamburg (Verwaltungsgericht, VG) held that a major international law firm in Hamburg must record the actual working hours of its employed lawyers and not just their billable hours. Associates and senior associates are not exempt from the German Working Hours Act, the court of first instance stated. An appeal of the decision is pending.
Employee Protections in Germany
German employment protections are based on two main statutes:
- the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Arbeitsschutzgesetz, ArbSchG), which aims to protect employees at work through occupational safety and health measures (ArbSchG, § 1); and
- the Working Hours Act (Arbeitszeitgesetz, ArbZG), which is intended to protect employees from the health dangers of exceeding working hour limits, according to the German Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVerwG).
The Working Hours Act limits employees’ maximum working time on workdays to an average of eight hours, mandating rest breaks during the day and guaranteeing a specific rest period before the next work assignment, among other measures. (ArbZG, §§ 3-5.) Section 17, paragraph 2 of the Working Hours Act gives the state supervisory authority the power to order an employer to take “necessary measures” to fulfill obligations arising under the act if violations are found. Paragraph 4 complements this by authorizing the supervisory authority to request information and documents necessary to monitor compliance with the act.
Facts of the Case
The plaintiff is an international corporate law firm that has multiple offices in Germany and employs over 300 lawyers in the country. After receiving anonymous complaints in 2020 and 2021 that associates at the firm’s Hamburg office were regularly working excessive hours, often from 9 a.m. until 11 p.m. or midnight, the supervisory authority, the Occupational Safety Authority of Hamburg (Staatliche Arbeitsschutzaufsicht), conducted an on-site inspection. It concluded that the firm did not record the lawyers’ actual working times but only the billable hours charged to clients. (Decision, paras. 2-3.)
In response, in November 2023, the authority issued an administrative order based on the Occupational Safety and Health Act requiring the firm to:
- record the actual working hours performed by the employed lawyers who are subject to the Working Hours Act in a traceable manner;
- instruct the employees on the need to correctly record working hours; and
- inform the Occupational Safety Authority how the firm ensures that the partners who supervise the firm’s employed lawyers fulfill their leadership responsibilities, specifically through regular reviews of working-time records. (Paras. 5-9.)
The plaintiff filed an administrative objection against the order, which the Occupational Safety Authority rejected. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to overturn the rejection. It alleged that the legal basis used for the order was either not applicable or was not supported by the facts. The plaintiff argued that only section 17, paragraph 2 of the Working Hours Act could apply as the more specific legal basis for the order, precluding application of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. However, the plaintiff argued that conditions required under the Working Hours Act were not met either, as there was no concrete risk of working-time violations. As proof of this, the plaintiff cited very low employee sickness rates at the firm, asserting that long working hours were not endangering the health of the firm’s employees. (Para. 25.)
Decision
The administrative court ruled largely in favor of the defendant, the Occupational Safety Authority, and upheld the first two provisions of the administrative order. It also specified that the order applies exclusively to associates and senior associates of the firm. It is not applicable to partners or other staff. (Para 36.)
The administrative court ruled that the order to the employer to record actual working hours was lawful and based on section 17, paragraph 2 of the Working Hours Act. The court found that at the time the order was issued, there was a concrete threat to public safety because it was likely the plaintiff had violated the provisions restricting maximum daily working hours and providing minimum rest periods. (ArbZG, §§ 3, 5.) Due to the lack of records to prove the hours worked by its employees, the plaintiff could not refute this conclusion. The court also ruled that lawyers do not qualify for exemptions granted to executive employees or chief physicians. (§ 18, para. 1.) It did not agree with the plaintiff’s argument that low sick leave rates prove the absence of health risks. Thus, it deemed the supervisory authority’s measure to be proportionate because the goal of protecting employee health outweighs the plaintiff’s interest in the free exercise of its profession. (Decision, paras. 45-48, 50-53, 65-68.)
The court also held that the Occupational Safety Authority was legally authorized to require the plaintiff to instruct employees on how to use the new system und submit proof of this instruction. (ArbZG, § 17, paras. 2, 4; Decision, paras. 70-73.)
However, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff regarding the third requirement of the order and overturned it. The court held that the directive to report how partners supervise working hours was disproportionate and unlawful. It stated that the authority’s order to implement a time-recording system already ensured sufficient compliance with the act and the additional order was, therefore, disproportionate. (Decision, paras. 77-79.)
Appeal
The court granted leave to appeal, determining that the legal question of whether section 17, paragraph 2 of the Working Hours Act may serve as a basis for an order to record working hours is of fundamental importance. As the court noted, this issue remains unresolved in case law and will affect a significant number of future cases. (Para. 84.)
Prepared by Robin Zamora, Law Library Intern, under the supervision of Jenny Gesley, Foreign Law Specialist
Law Library of Congress, January 21, 2026
Read more Global Legal Monitor articles.
Read Law Library reports on Germany.