Employment Law

The latest podcast with Stefan Brink and Niko Härting focuses mainly on frustrating issues. First, we discuss (00:47) the vexing ruling by the Administrative Court of Karlsruhe (3rd Chamber) of 18 March 2026 (Case No. 3 K 2355/24), which dismissed the claim for access to documents from a technical consultation between the Federal Constitutional Court and judges of the European Court of Human Rights in June 2023. Although the issue concerned freedom of information, the Federal Constitutional Court did not wish to demonstrate transparency. The Administrative Court of Karlsruhe ruled that whilst this exchange between courts should not be classified as case law and was therefore subject to freedom of information, priority should be given to protecting the confidentiality of exchanges between courts over the required transparency of administrative actions. This is difficult to comprehend. Next (18:29) is a late concession by the ‘House of History’ regarding the Schabowski note: the House of History did not wish to provide any details regarding the acquisition of the historic note on the opening of the Wall and sought to draw a veil of silence over who had received €25,000 for it. After the Cologne Administrative Court and the Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia had upheld a reporter’s claim, the museum decided against taking the case to the Federal Administrative Court and revealed what it would rather have kept secret: the (tax) money went to the circle of the shady GDR currency procurer, Schalck-Golodkowski. Really annoying. Incidentally, the legal costs are also borne by the taxpayer. Next (27:09) we look at a ruling by the ECJ (dated 19 March 2026 – C 526/24) on the right to information: in March 2023, a person residing in Austria subscribed to the newsletter of a family-run optician’s firm based in Arnsberg. In doing so, they entered their personal data into the registration form on the company’s website and consented to the processing of this data. Thirteen days later, the data subject submitted a request for access under Article 15 of the GDPR to the optician, who rejected the request as abusive. The data subject pursued his request for access and also asserted a claim for damages under Article 82 of the GDPR in the amount of €1,000. An vexatious case. Following a referral from the German Local Court, the ECJ has now clarified: Even an initial request for access to personal data under Article 15 of the GDPR, made by the data subject to the controller, may be regarded as ‘excessive’ within the meaning of Article 12(5) of the GDPR if the controller demonstrates that the request was not made to ascertain the processing of such data and to verify its lawfulness, but rather with an abusive intent. Finally (38:00), the focus is on a decision by the Dresden Administrative Court (5 November 2025, case number: 6 K 790/23), which once again concerns the documentation of a parking offence by means of a photograph. The Saxony Data Protection Supervisory Authority informed the photographer in a letter of its legal opinion that reporting via photograph was only permitted in cases of legitimate interest due to personal involvement (contrary to the Ansbach Administrative Court) and announced sanctions in the event of a repeat offence. The Dresden Administrative Court deemed the action brought against this to be inadmissible, ruling that the warning was not an administrative act and that actions for annulment and for performance were inadmissible. Furthermore, Article 78 of the GDPR grants a right of appeal against supervisory authorities only in the case of legally binding decisions. Annoying.

First, from minute 01:53, Prof. Niko Härting and Dr Stefan Brink discuss reforms to the Freedom of Information Act (IFG) in the federal states. In Berlin, critical infrastructure is to be exempted from the Freedom of Information Act. There are now also moves in Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania to restrict freedom of information. Not a hit! The discussion then turns (from 11:19) to the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruling of 31 March 2026 – VI ZR 157/24. Schlager star Helene Fischer took legal action against a report by BILD. In its ruling, the BGH addressed the scope of liability for intermediaries regarding follow-up reporting on social media and the internet. What measures does the Federal Court of Justice consider reasonable for those liable for interference? Finally (28:01), Brink and Härting discuss a decision by the Higher Administrative Court of Koblenz dated 28 November 2025 – 10 A 11059/23.OVG. A patient’s health data was forwarded to a specialist. As a result, the patient concerned contacted the state data protection authority. The legal successor of the patient, who has since died, continued the complaint before the courts. Can the right to informational self-determination also protect the data of deceased persons under certain circumstances?

“The Basic Law does not prohibit hatred. The Basic Law does not prohibit contempt for others. Nor does the Basic Law require loyalty to the Constitution. The Basic Law also permits the rejection of the Constitution… Even those who disseminate statements that contravene the Basic Law can invoke freedom of expression.” In conversation with Prof. Niko Härting, Leipzig-based constitutional and media law expert Prof. Christoph Degenhart highlights the broad scope of protection afforded by freedom of expression and criticises efforts to increasingly restrict this freedom through new criminal provisions. From Degenhart’s perspective, it is not only the offence of “insulting a politician” (Section 188 of the German Criminal Code) that is cause for concern. Degenhart also expresses incomprehension regarding the Federal Minister of Justice’s efforts to tackle “deepfakes”, “AI pornography” and indecent photographs by expanding and creating new offences relating to speech. “Chilling effects” are invariably associated with expanded criminal provisions and can lead to citizens becoming increasingly reluctant to express their opinions in public. The broad concept of freedom of expression, which the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) emphasises in its established case law, is easily forgotten in the process. Degenhart is critical not only of the planned changes to criminal law. He also calls for a sense of proportion regarding new powers proposed in criminal procedure and police law to enable the widespread use of biometric procedures. As a result, innocent bystanders could find themselves under the scrutiny of the police and the public prosecutor’s office at any time.

In episode 54 of our sports law podcast “Liebling Bosman”, we examine the trademark dispute surrounding darts player Justin Hood and his nickname “Happy Feet”. We also discuss the CAS proceedings in the case of Senegal v the African Football Confederation (CAF) in connection with the decision to award Morocco the Africa Cup of Nations title by default, and assess the liability issues surrounding Noa Lang’s injury in the match between Galatasaray and Liverpool. Finally, we take a look at the latest developments regarding stadium bans in Germany and provide an update on the regional league reform.

In episode 42 of the Data Navigator podcast, we speak to Dominik Ebeling (Head of Data Governance, Rolls-Royce Power Systems) about whether and how trade secrets might be embedded in IoT sensor data – and what this means in terms of the requirements under the Data Act. Specifically, we cover: - striking the right balance between data access and innovation protection, - the fridge example: how a product’s control logic can be deduced from a temperature-time series, - reverse engineering via data versus via hardware: why the effort involved is a crucial protective factor, - a practical categorisation of sensor data into four levels – from environmental variables to the protected core of innovation. - figures: at least two-thirds of sensor data is completely uncritical for disclosure – says the engine manufacturer and - the Omnibus, the Federal Network Agency and the call not to abandon the compromise between data sharing and the protection of trade secrets.

Microsoft positions Foundry as a controlled environment for the use of large language models within its own Azure infrastructure. The key message is clear: data remains isolated, is not shared, and is not used for training purposes. However, a closer examination of the contractual terms reveals a more nuanced picture.

In a four-part series on penso.ch, the specialist magazine for HR, social security and occupational pensions, Olivia Boccali explains how companies can use AI-powered people analytics throughout the entire employee journey – from recruitment through development and performance management to offboarding – in a way that is both legally compliant and practical.

In a four-part series on penso.ch, the trade magazine for HR, social insurance, and employee benefits, Olivia Boccali explains how companies can implement AI-powered people analytics throughout the entire employee journey—from recruitment through development and performance to offboarding—in a way that is both legally compliant and practical.

When manufacturers are required to share data, a key question arises: on what terms? The Data Act provides the answer in five letters: FRAND – Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory. What does this mean in practice?