The Hamburg Regional Labor Court (LAG) ruled on June 11, 2024 (Case No.: 3 SLa 2/24) that claims under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), such as access or compensation claims, can be restricted by contractual exclusion periods in employment contracts. This decision is particularly relevant for employers, as it allows them to set time limits on the assertion of such claims.
Case Background
A former employee sued her previous employer for several years of unused vacation compensation. The employer rejected the claims, citing the exclusion periods agreed upon in the employment contract. The contract included the following clause:
- Exclusion period regulation: All claims arising from the employment relationship, as well as those connected to it, expire if they are not asserted in writing or text form within three months of their due date.
- Deadlines in case of rejection: If the opposing party rejects the claim or does not respond within two weeks, the claim expires if it is not legally pursued within three months after rejection or deadline expiry.
- Exceptions: The exclusion clause does not apply to claims based on liability for intentional misconduct or claims for compensation of work performance at the statutory minimum wage level.
The plaintiff argued that this agreement was invalid because it also covered legally mandatory GDPR claims.
Court Decision
The LAG Hamburg dismissed the lawsuit and rejected the plaintiff’s argument. The court ruled that GDPR claims can, in principle, be subject to contractual exclusion periods as long as they do not violate EU legal principles, particularly the principle of effectiveness.
Key points of the ruling:
- Inclusion of GDPR claims: GDPR claims can generally be restricted by contractual exclusion periods.
- No excessive burden: The regulation does not make it excessively difficult or impossible to enforce GDPR claims.
- Member States’ procedural autonomy: Since the GDPR does not explicitly regulate whether data subject rights can be limited by exclusion periods, it is up to Member States to define the procedural rules for enforcing such rights.
- Principles of equivalence and effectiveness:
- The rules must not be less favorable than those governing similar domestic claims (principle of equivalence).
- They must not make it practically impossible or excessively difficult to exercise rights under EU law (principle of effectiveness).
- The court noted that the exclusion clause in the employment contract does not distinguish between claims based on EU law and those based on national law.
- The court also found that reasonable exclusion periods align with the principle of legal certainty and do not make it unreasonably difficult to exercise EU rights.
Practical Implications
This ruling has the following key implications:
- Legal certainty for employers: Employers can include exclusion periods in employment contracts, which also apply to GDPR claims.
- Limitation of claims: Employees must be aware that they must assert their claims, including GDPR-related claims, within the agreed timeframes.
- Compliance with EU legal principles: While exclusion periods are permitted, they must align with EU principles and must not excessively hinder the enforcement of rights.
Note:
The decision of the LAG Hamburg is not yet legally binding. An appeal has been filed with the Federal Labor Court (BAG) under Case No.: 9 AZR 152/24.
Summary
The LAG Hamburg ruling strengthens the position of employers by allowing them to limit GDPR claims through contractual exclusion periods. At the same time, it highlights the importance of adhering to EU legal principles. The final outcome depends on the Federal Labor Court’s ruling. For businesses, this means reviewing and adjusting employment contracts accordingly, while employees must be mindful of their rights and applicable deadlines.
