Purpose and Function of the A1 Certificate: The A1 certificate (A1-Bescheinigung) is the key document in the European system for coordinating social security. It determines which national social security law applies when an employee or self-employed person works temporarily in another EU or EFTA country. Its core function is to avoid double contributions and to guarantee that the worker remains continuously insured under one system. In practice, this means that a German employee on secondment to France, or a Belgian professional temporarily working in Germany, continues to pay contributions only in the home country, as long as an A1 certificate has been issued.
Category: Labour law
When foreign lawyers hear the phrase “Beweisverwertungsverbot” — the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence — they might assume it functions like its counterpart in U.S. law, with strict rules and predictable consequences. But in Germany, the situation is more complex. The exclusionary rule exists, yes — but it is neither automatic nor uniform across different areas of law. Its application is nuanced, contextual, and shaped by a delicate balancing of interests.
In this article, we’ll unpack how German law treats unlawfully obtained evidence, highlighting the different approaches in criminal law, labor law, and civil law. Through examples drawn from actual cases, you’ll see that exclusion is often the exception rather than the rule — especially in criminal proceedings.
On January 15, 2025, the Regional Labor Court (Landesarbeitsgericht, LAG) of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern issued an important ruling on the legality of redundancy (Az. 3 SLa 156/24). The central question was whether the elimination of a major contract could justify the dismissal of a long-serving employee, particularly in light of the legal requirements under § 1 (2) and (3) of the German Dismissal Protection Act (Kündigungsschutzgesetz, KSchG). The court affirmed this and ruled that the dismissal was lawful. This decision is noteworthy not only for its detailed analysis of economic reasons for dismissal but also for clarifying the limits of entrepreneurial freedom and the requirements for social selection.
Cyber incidents, whether caused by external attackers or internal employees, present immense challenges to companies. In addition to ensuring business continuity, the forensic analysis of such incidents is essential to minimize damage, identify perpetrators, and collect legally admissible evidence. However, IT forensics operates in a highly complex legal environment. Companies must closely align legal requirements and technical capabilities not only to close security gaps but also to prevail in potential legal disputes.
The pressing questions are: How can incidents be clarified, perpetrators identified, and all legal requirements met at the same time? IT forensics provides essential tools but is not solely a technical discipline. It requires a precise interplay of technology, law, and organizational measures. Management, in particular, is responsible for creating an environment in which IT forensic measures can be implemented effectively and in compliance with the law—ideally before an incident occurs. This article highlights the legal aspects of IT forensics, from threat analysis to securing evidence that is admissible in court.
Supervisory Board Liability: The liability of supervisory board members is a multifaceted topic affecting both companies and their governing bodies. A deep understanding of the legal framework and practical consequences is essential for both management and the supervisory board.
In the following, I would like to briefly address the tasks of the supervisory board, the legal framework, and various aspects of liability arising from work within a supervisory board. My experience defending supervisory board members—particularly in municipal corporations—has shown that this is often where deficiencies lie.
The issue of false self-employment poses significant legal, financial, and criminal challenges for companies. Particularly in the context of project-based activities, the use of external service providers, or agile working methods such as Scrum, misclassifications can have fatal consequences. This article is aimed at management and provides a practical explanation of the legal framework, risks, and strategies to avoid false self-employment.
In today’s digital age, protecting business secrets has become increasingly complex, especially in countries with strict data protection laws like Germany. A recent ruling from the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Munich (7 U 351/23) highlights the serious legal implications for employees who forward company emails or data to their private email accounts. For foreign companies with employees in Germany, understanding these risks is crucial for safeguarding sensitive business information and preventing potential internal threats.
Sexual harassment in the context of German criminal law is primarily governed by Section 184i of the German Criminal Code (StGB). This provision addresses sexual acts that infringe on a person’s sexual autonomy but fall below the threshold of Section 177 StGB, which deals with sexual assault, sexual coercion, and rape. The intention behind introducing Section 184i was to penalize actions that are clearly sexual in nature but do not rise to the level of a serious offense like assault or coercion.
Employers in Germany have the right to take measures to verify the legitimacy of an employee’s sick leave if there are justified doubts about the reported illness. These possibilities and their legal limitations are strictly regulated and may include the involvement of medical services, private investigators, or technical surveillance methods.
In a remarkable decision, the German labor court in Heilbronn (case no. 8 Ca 191/23) dealt with the issue of age discrimination in job advertisements. The focus was on the use of the term “digital native” and its implications for older applicants.