EU Time Tracking Laws

Time tracking laws form a vital foundation for fair labor practices, helping employers and employees stay aligned with regulated hours, rest breaks, and overtime rules. Within the EU, these regulations are further strengthened by the Working Time Directive, which sets uniform standards for maximum weekly working hours, rest periods, and annual leave.

Both employers and employees must understand these requirements to ensure compliance, foster transparency, and protect their rights in the workplace.

This Article Covers:

Time tracking is legal and, in many cases, mandatory. In the EU time tracking laws establish directives that regulate time tracking.

EU Member States must require employers to establish an “objective, reliable, and accessible system” for measuring the daily working time of each employee. This ensures that the rights provided by the Working Time Directive (2003/88/EC) are effectively upheld.

How to Track Employee Time in the EU?

While the EU does not prescribe specific methods, the system chosen must meet certain criteria to effectively protect worker rights. So whether it is digital time clocks, software applications or manual timesheets, the method chosen must be compatible with regulations.

Employers are obligated to implement systems that accurately record employees’ working hours, ensuring compliance with EU time tracking laws. The time tracking must be objective, reliable and accessible.

Employers must ensure the chosen method complies with data protection regulations, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which governs the lawful processing of personal data.

Key EU Time Tracking Directives

Several European Union directives and regulations establish the legal framework for time tracking, setting standards for working hours, rest periods, and employer obligations. Below is a list of these key legal instruments, along with explanations of how they relate to time tracking:

  • Working Time Directive (Directive 2003/88/EC): The Working Time Directive establishes fundamental rules on maximum working hours, minimum rest periods, and annual leave. Time tracking is critical to ensure compliance with these provisions.
  • Directive 2019/1152 on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions: Directive 2019/1152 requires employers to clearly inform employees about their working hours, making accurate time tracking essential for transparency and predictability.
  • Council Directive 91/533/EEC on Employers’ Obligation to Inform Employees of the Conditions Applicable to the Contract: According to Directive 91/533/EEC, employers must provide written details of working conditions to ensure that actual working hours align with contractual terms.
  • Directive 89/391/EEC (Occupational Safety and Health “Framework Directive”): Directive 89/391/EEC focuses on preventing work-related risks. Proper time tracking helps prevent excessive working hours, reducing worker fatigue and enhancing workplace safety.
  • Directive 2002/15/EC on the Organisation of the Working Time of Mobile Workers in Road Transport: Directive 2002/15/EC sets specific rules for mobile road transport workers. Accurate time tracking ensures compliance with driving limits and rest requirements, improving safety and working conditions.
  • Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 on the Harmonisation of Certain Social Legislation Relating to Road Transport: Regulation No 561/2006 mandates the use of tachographs and similar devices for tracking drivers’ hours, breaks, and rest periods, ensuring the safe and fair working of commercial drivers.
  • Directive 94/33/EC on the Protection of Young People at Work: Directive 94/33/EC establishes special working time restrictions for young workers. Employers must track hours to ensure compliance and protect young employees’ health and safety.
  • General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Regulation (EU) 2016/679): GDPR governs the protection of personal data, including time tracking records. Employers must handle working time data lawfully, ensuring privacy and informed consent.

When Do Employers Need to Track Time in the EU?

Employers must track the employees’ time spent working. The Working Time Directive defines “working time” as any period during which the worker is working, at the employer’s disposal, and carrying out their duties.

Scheduled work periods must be tracked to ensure compliance with maximum weekly working hours and minimum rest periods. Additional hours beyond standard working time are considered working time and must be recorded to verify adherence to the 48-hour weekly maximum on average.

Periods of rest, such as breaks and leave, are not considered working time and there is no direct requirement in the EU directives that mandates tracking of rest periods.

EU Time Tracking Exemptions

The Working Time Directive allows certain employees to be exempt from time tracking:

  • Autonomous Workers: Employees with control over their working hours, such as executives or senior managers, may be exempt from being tracked.
  • Specific Sectors: Derogations may apply in sectors requiring continuity of service, ensuring essential public services can operate without interruption and the need to be tracked.
  • Collective Agreements: If agreed upon in collective agreements, certain deviations from standard working time rules are permissible, such as not being tracked, provided they still respect minimum health and safety requirements.

Employers should consult national legislation to understand specific exemptions applicable in their country, as EU Member States may have introduced conditions or limitations when transposing the directive. 

Can EU Employers Round Up Employee Work Hours?

Rounding up employee work hours may infringe upon the requirement to accurately record actual working time. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) emphasizes the need for precise tracking to ensure compliance with the Working Time Directive. Employers should record the exact hours worked without rounding to avoid potential legal issues.

Penalties for Breaking Time Tracking Laws in the EU

The Court of Justice of the European Union requires EU Member States to ensure employers accurately record working time. However, no directives prescribe exact penalties for inaccurate recording of working time. Instead, Article 23 of the Working Time Directive mandates each EU Member State to determine “effective, proportionate, and dissuasive” penalties for non-compliance.

Also, general employment law or other rules apply to time tracking too. For example, time tracking has to comply with data protection rules. Per GDPR, national authorities must impose fines for certain breaches of data protection rules. For some types of breaches, GDPR leaves it to the discretion of the national legislature.

Legal Cases Related to Time Tracking Laws in the EU

Deutsche Bank Fails to Track Time Properly and EU Court Overrides National Law

Case: CCOO v Deutsche Bank (Case C-55/18)
This case revolved around the fundamental rights of workers and the obligations of employers under European law. A Spanish trade union brought the issue to court, challenging a company for failing to implement a system to record employees’ daily working hours. The union argued that this omission left workers vulnerable to unpaid overtime and violated their rights under EU directives. The defendant, Deutsche Bank SAE, claimed that Spanish law, as interpreted by national courts, did not require such a system.

The court examined EU law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Directive 2003/88, and concluded that reliable daily tracking of all hours is necessary to protect workers’ rights to rest and limited working time. It found that without such a system, employees have no practical means to ensure their rights are respected, and authorities cannot effectively monitor compliance.

The Court’s decision emphasized the importance of protecting workers’ rights under the Charter by declaring that directives prohibit national laws that, as interpreted by national case law, fail to require employers to implement systems for measuring daily working hours. With this judgment, the Court of Justice of the European Union upheld the directives and made it compulsory for states to implement changes to make national laws compatible with time tracking directives.

Key Lessons from the Case:
  • Domestic laws that fail to meet EU requirements, as interpreted in this case, can be overridden. Member states must ensure their time tracking regulations align with EU directives and the Charter.
  • The general obligations under the Time Tracking Directive can only be fulfilled if the time tracking system in place is objective, reliable and accessible.

UK Called Out for Failing to Ensure Sufficient Rest Periods

Case: Commission v United Kingdom (Case C-484/04)

The European Commission brought a claim against the United Kingdom, alleging that its implementation of regulations concerning the organization of working time, failed to protect workers’ rights to rest and health. After inspecting the state of workers in the country, the Commission argued that the UK’s Working Time Regulations (WTR) improperly applied a derogation to workers whose hours were partially unmeasured or self-determined, undermining these protections.

The Commission claimed that the UK’s approach went beyond the derogation allowed under Article 17(1) of the directive, which applies only to workers whose hours are entirely unmeasured or self-determined. It also criticized the UK for failing to implement measures requiring employers to ensure workers could exercise their right to rest. Instead, the UK’s guidelines left it to workers to take rest periods without obliging employers to facilitate them, effectively weakening the directive’s safeguards.

The Court ruled in favor of the Commission, finding the UK in breach of Articles 17(1), 3, and 5 of Directive 93/104. It held that minimum rest periods are essential for worker health and safety and that the UK’s regulations and guidelines failed to meet the directive’s objectives. By allowing employers to avoid responsibility for ensuring rest, the UK had undermined the directive’s core purpose, necessitating corrective action.

Key Lessons from the Case:
  • Employers cannot rely on vague policies; rest periods must be clearly guaranteed and recorded.
  • Proper time tracking is essential to prove that employees receive their legally mandated downtime. Tracking only actual working time is not enough to achieve this and rest time should also be tracked.

On-Call Duty at the Workplace Counts as Working Time

Case: Jaeger (Case C-151/02)

Dr. Norert Jaeger was required to remain on-call between shifts, with a room provided at the hospital for him to sleep. According to the collective agreement, only 49% of the on-call time (which typically ranged from 16 to 25 hours) was classified as working time and he was not compensated for the entire time he was at the hospital. However, Dr. Jaeger argued that the entire on-call period should be regarded as working time.

The European Court of Justice determined that all time Dr. Jaeger was required to remain at the hospital, including periods spent sleeping, must be considered working time. The Court clarified that the Directive does not permit inactive on-call time to be classified as a rest period. Additionally, it highlighted that Dr. Jaeger faced greater restrictions than a doctor on call from home, as he was isolated from his family and social life.

Key Lessons from the Case:
  • Being physically present and ready for work is considered working time—even if not actively performing tasks.

Important Cautionary Note

When making this guide we have tried to make it accurate but we do not give any guarantee that the information provided is correct or up-to-date. We therefore strongly advise you to seek advice from qualified professionals before acting on any information provided in this guide. We do not accept any liability for any damages or risks incurred for the use of this guide.