Cross-Border Trade Secret Disputes Put German Employers in Legal Limbo as Top Labor Court Seeks EU Guidance
13.06.2026 - 02:57:59 | boerse-global.de
Germany’s highest labor tribunal has stopped a pending appeal to seek a ruling from the European Court of Justice on a question with sweeping implications: where should an employer sue a worker living in another EU country over stolen trade secrets? The case involves a current or former employee based in the Czech Republic, whose employer tried to use the German courts.
At the heart of the referral is the interpretation of EU Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction. The Bundesarbeitsgericht wants to know whether claims brought under Germany’s Trade Secrets Act (Geschäftsgeheimnisgesetz) should be treated as disputes arising from an individual employment contract. If the ECJ says yes, employers would be forced to file such lawsuits in the worker’s country of residence — not at the employer’s seat or the place where the alleged leak occurred.
Until now, German companies have often relied on the tort-based jurisdiction at the location of the harmful act. That option would disappear if a factual link to the employment relationship exists. The BAG has suspended its own review until the Luxembourg judges deliver their answer.
Plaintiffs Get a Choice When Suing Both a Worker and a Third Party
If a company seeks damages from both an employee and an external party — say, a competitor who received the secret — the plaintiff can pick the forum. That choice is final, the BAG underscored. A referral order from a regional court (Landgericht) to a labor court is binding as long as it was not arbitrary. The labor court keeps jurisdiction even if the claim against the third party is consolidated there.
Strict Deadlines and Cost Rules Trap the Unwary
Employment law in Germany imposes tight timelines. Unfair dismissal claims must be lodged within three weeks of receiving the notice. For severely disabled workers, the employer needs prior approval from the Integration Office. A flawed works council consultation can void a termination outright.
Wage claims also face short deadlines. Many employment contracts or collective agreements set exclusion periods of just three months. The general statutory limitation period, by contrast, is three years.
A crucial cost detail: in the first instance before a labor court, each side pays its own legal fees regardless of the outcome. Lawyers are mandatory only from the second instance onward.
When an Employer Really Pays — and When It Does Not
For work accidents on company premises, the employer is liable only if it acted with double intent — meaning both the act of injury and the resulting harm were deliberate. Simple or even gross negligence is not enough.
The BAG has also clarified that managing directors are not personally liable to workers for violations of the Minimum Wage Act (Mindestlohngesetz). While administrative fines are possible, failing to pay the minimum wage does not count as a protective law under civil liability rules. Separately, the Federal Court of Justice ruled in mid-June that the cost of obtaining a credit report (Schufa) in advance is not recoverable as default damages. From an ex-ante perspective, the court said, such a report is not necessary for the proceedings.
World Cup 2026: No Excuse for Tardiness
The football World Cup in North America will mean early kick-off times in Germany. Labor lawyers warn: watching matches late at night does not justify showing up late for work. Repeated lateness after a written warning can lead to a conduct-based dismissal. Experts advise employees to arrange flexible hours or take vacation well in advance rather than risk their jobs.
