Why time tracking without fingerprints is the safe choice
Fingerprints are biometric data under Article 9 GDPR and may only be processed under narrow conditions. For mere time tracking, the necessity is as a rule absent; the Berlin Labour Court declared such recording impermissible in 2019. Cards, fobs and apps achieve the same thing without that risk.
As of:September 2026
Biometrics is the exception, not the technology of choice
A fingerprint is biometric data for unique identification and therefore falls under Article 9(1) GDPR. Processing such data is in principle prohibited and permitted only where one of the exemptions applies.
In the employment relationship, Article 9(2)(b) GDPR is the main candidate, together with section 26(3) BDSG. Both require necessity, and that is exactly where time tracking fails: it can equally be achieved with a card, a fob, a PIN or an app.
On 16/10/2019 the Berlin Labour Court ruled (29 Ca 5451/19) that time tracking by fingerprint without consent is not necessary and therefore impermissible. A warning letter for refusing to use the system had to be removed from the personnel file.
Why consent rarely helps
In theory consent is possible (Article 9(2)(a) GDPR, section 26(2) BDSG). In practice it almost never holds up in an employment relationship: it has to be freely given, and freedom requires a genuine choice without detriment. Anyone who can only clock in with a finger has none.
On top of that, consent can be withdrawn at any time. A system that does not work for part of the workforce because they have withdrawn needs a second route anyway, and then the second route is the only one needed.
The works council has codetermination rights on introduction (section 87(1) no. 6 BetrVG), and processing special categories regularly requires a data protection impact assessment under Article 35 GDPR.
Knowing the rules is one thing, keeping to them day to day another. MetronHR checks breaks, rest periods and maximum working time automatically as time is recorded.
What works instead
Each of these variants satisfies the record-keeping duty without processing special categories of personal data.
| Route | What it suits | What to bear in mind |
|---|---|---|
| Card or key fob at the terminal | Production, trades, practices: anywhere not everyone has a work phone. | A lost card is blocked and reassigned. That process belongs in the log. |
| PIN at the terminal | As a second route when the card is missing. | PINs get passed on. So as the sole route only with a clear rule. |
| An app on a personal or work phone | Field work, building sites, working from home. | A location is not needed for this and should not be collected. |
| Web recording at the workplace | Office and knowledge work. | The simplest route where people are working at a computer anyway. |
Card or key fob at the terminal
- What it suits
- Production, trades, practices: anywhere not everyone has a work phone.
- What to bear in mind
- A lost card is blocked and reassigned. That process belongs in the log.
PIN at the terminal
- What it suits
- As a second route when the card is missing.
- What to bear in mind
- PINs get passed on. So as the sole route only with a clear rule.
An app on a personal or work phone
- What it suits
- Field work, building sites, working from home.
- What to bear in mind
- A location is not needed for this and should not be collected.
Web recording at the workplace
- What it suits
- Office and knowledge work.
- What to bear in mind
- The simplest route where people are working at a computer anyway.
As of 15/09/2026. MetronHR records without biometrics: card, fob, PIN, app and web recording. No fingerprint is processed anywhere.
Facial recognition is the same case
What applies to a fingerprint applies equally to any facial image used for identification: it is biometric data under Article 9 GDPR. A terminal with a camera that recognises people therefore processes a special category of personal data and needs the same justification that is regularly absent for time tracking.
Anyone running such a system needs a data protection impact assessment, works council codetermination and a solid legal basis. Anyone not running one needs none of it.
Further reading:Articles 9 and 35 GDPR · Section 26 BDSG · Berlin Labour Court, judgment of 16/10/2019, 29 Ca 5451/19 · Section 87(1) no. 6 BetrVG
This is not legal advice; for a specific case at your workplace you are better off asking someone qualified to give it.
Published by: AMNAU GmbH
Editorial responsibility: Ugur Aydogan, Product development.
Last reviewed: September 2026
Frequently asked questions
What we are asked about this most often.
As a rule no. Fingerprints are biometric data under Article 9 GDPR, whose processing is in principle prohibited. For time tracking the necessity is absent, because a card, a fob or an app do the same job. The Berlin Labour Court ruled accordingly in 2019 (29 Ca 5451/19).
Consent is only effective in an employment relationship if it is freely given, and it can be withdrawn at any time. Since a second recording route has to be available for those who withdraw anyway, the second route is the only one needed.
Continuous location tracking is impermissible; it goes beyond what time tracking requires. A one-off location when clocking in can be permissible for field work, but it needs a legal basis, transparency and works council codetermination.
Yes. The introduction and use of technical devices suitable for monitoring behaviour or performance is subject to codetermination under section 87(1) no. 6 BetrVG. That applies to any time tracking, regardless of the technology.
Question not answered here? Every step is explained in the help centre.
Knowing the rules is one thing. Keeping to them is another.
MetronHR records working times, checks breaks and rest periods automatically and documents every change. Try it free for 14 days.
No credit card, cancel any time