Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
11 09 169 • KG LU 11 09 169 AI generated

Appeal Dismissed for Pre-Trial Disclosure of Work Time Tracking Tables

Case Number 11 09 169
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Switzerland · Canton of Lucerne (CH-LU)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Entscheidsuche mirror Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed an appeal seeking pre-trial disclosure of work time tracking tables under $\S 228$ of the Civil Procedure Code, reasoning that while Article 46 of the Labour Act refers to the Data Protection Act, this reference is intended only to ensure supervisory authorities comply with data protection standards and does not create a private law right for an employee to obtain pre-trial disclosure of such records, which are primarily documentation for enforcement bodies; furthermore, the court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate a specific, instrumental need under data protection law or other legal grounds, such as potential personality right violations, to justify the required disclosure of factual time records.

Legislator headnote

Official

§ 228 ZPO; Art. 46 ArG; Art. 8 Abs. 1 DSG. Trotz Verweis auf das Datenschutzgesetz bietet Art. 46 ArG keine hinreichende gesetzliche Grundlage für eine vorprozessuale Edition der Arbeitszeiterfassungstabellen im Sinne von § 228 ZPO. | Zivilprozessrecht

Keywords

AI generated
recording of working time Civil Procedure Code labour standard protection of personality rights professional secret right to demonstrate

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 46 ArG
This provision was cited in the reasoning leading to the dismissal of the appeal, establishing that it does not provide a sufficient legal basis for pre-trial discovery under § 228 ZPO.
Art. 8 Abs. 1 DSG
This provision was cited in the reasoning regarding the appellant's argument about the right to information, which was ultimately deemed insufficient to warrant pre-trial discovery.
Art. 292 StGB
Art. 73 ArGV
Art. 17 DSG
Art. 328b OR
Art. 362 OR
Art. 321c OR

Cited Case Law

AI generated
BGE 120 II 118
Employee Access to Personnel File and Investigative Reports Post-Termination
BGE 122 II 118
AI generated
21 02 153
Appeal Dismissed in Case of Unauthorized Data Procurement and Breach of Official Secrecy Concerning Employee Call Records
KA 01 109
Appeal Regarding Timing of Access to Investigation Records
11 02 70
Appeal Court Refuses Inadmissible Post-Pleading Submissions Due to Procedural Bars
OG 1995 39
Inadmissibility of Late Evidentiary Submissions in Appeals
11 08 84
Gastronomy Overtime Dispute: Employee Records Upheld Against Employer's Late Counter-Evidence

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 46 ArG

This provision was cited in the reasoning leading to the dismissal of the appeal, establishing that it does not provide a sufficient legal basis for pre-trial discovery under § 228 ZPO.

Art. 8 Abs. 1 DSG

This provision was cited in the reasoning regarding the appellant's argument about the right to information, which was ultimately deemed insufficient to warrant pre-trial discovery.

§ 228 ZPO

This provision defines the basis for the pre-trial discovery request whose application was denied, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Rechtsprechung Luzern

Instanz: · Obergericht

Abteilung: · I. Kammer

Rechtsgebiet: · Zivilprozessrecht

Entscheiddatum: · 12.01.2010

Fallnummer: · 11 09 169

LGVE:

Leitsatz: · § 228 ZPO; Art. 46 ArG; Art. 8 Abs. 1 DSG. Trotz Verweis auf das Datenschutzgesetz bietet Art. 46 ArG keine hinreichende gesetzliche Grundlage für eine vorprozessuale Edition der Arbeitszeiterfassungstabellen im Sinne von § 228 ZPO.

Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.