BAG - 8 AZR 169/25
From GDPRhub
| BAG - 8 AZR 169/25 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | BAG (Germany) |
| Jurisdiction: | Germany |
| Relevant Law: | Article 15(1) GDPR Article 15(3) GDPR |
| Decided: | 16.04.2026 |
| Published: | 07.08.2026 |
| Parties: | |
| National Case Number/Name: | 8 AZR 169/25 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | |
| Appeal from: | ArbG München (Germany) 12 Ca 3038/24 |
| Appeal to: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | German |
| Original Source: | REWIS (in German) |
| Initial Contributor: | av |
A court held a company was not required to provide an employee copies of compliance reports concerning their conduct as a manager under Article 15(3) GDPR – the documents also contained other information than personal data undergoing processing.
English Summary
Facts
A company (the controller) commissioned a law firm to conduct a compliance investigation into alleged misconduct of a manager (the data subject) in August 2023. The investigation resulted in two compliance reports containing the allegations against the data subject, the names of whistleblowers and witnesses, and a summary of the findings of the investigation.
The data subject claimed that she had the right to receive copies of the final compliance reports pursuant to Articles 15(1) and 15(3) GDPR. She requested access to these documents in order to verify what statements had been made about her, whether those statements were accurate, and how they had been determined. The controller refused to grant the data subject access to copies of the entire documents – it considered that its interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the compliance reports as trade secrets outweighed the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining information.
The court of first instance ordered the controller to provide the data subject a copy of the earlier version of the compliance report. The appellate court dismissed the data subject’s claims. Following this, the data subject appealed before the Federal Labour Court and also requested access to an interim report related to the same investigation for the first time.
Holding
The court dismissed the data subject’s appeal and held that she did not have the right to receive a copy of the final compliance reports under Articles 15(1) and 15(3) GDPR. The court held that requesting access to an interim report constituted an impermissible expansion of the claim in the appeal proceedings.
Furthermore, the court held that the final compliance reports did not exclusively contain personal data within the meaning of Article 4(1) GDPR. For instance, the documents also contained legal analysis, which merely constitutes information about how the controller assesses the legal situation. Consequently, the court argued that the data subject did not need copies of the reports in their entirety in order to verify the accuracy of the personal data and the lawfulness of the processing.
Comment
Share your comments here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details.
Federal Labor Court
8 AZR 169/25
April 16, 2026
Disclosure of a Copy of a Compliance Report
rewis logo
REWIS: LEGAL TECHNOLOGY
Case Law Database
Information provided without guarantee. URL: https://rewis.io/s/u/G6IO/
© REWIS UG (limited liability) Federal Labor Court
8th Senate 2 8 AZR 169/25 dated April 16, 2026 | rewis.io
8 AZR 169/25 dated April 16, 2026
Judgment | Federal Labor Court | 8th Senate
Headnote
The plaintiff’s appeal against the judgement of the Munich Regional Labor Court dated June 12,
2025—2 SLa 70/25—is dismissed.
The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the appeal.
Facts
1 The parties are in dispute over the question of whether the defendant must provide copies of compliance
reports concerning the plaintiff’s conduct as a manager
.
2 The plaintiff holds a managerial position with the defendant. In early April
2023, the defendant’s ombudswoman informed the compliance department that there were
complaints regarding the plaintiff. Three whistleblowers had described the plaintiff’s management style
as intimidating, demeaning, disrespectful, and dishonest
. Through various behaviors, she had unsettled, demotivated, and literally made employees
sick. At least two
employees had already resigned as a result. Between August 25, 2023,
and January 11, 2024, the defendant subsequently commissioned a compliance investigation
into the plaintiff’s alleged managerial misconduct, to be conducted by a
law firm. There are two versions of the final report on this
compliance investigation: one dated January 31, 2024, and one
dated February 6, 2024. Both versions contain identical content, including a
structured summary of the investigation’s findings. The allegations
against the plaintiff are listed, and whistleblowers and witnesses are
named. The content of the conversations is reproduced in part as verbatim quotes
and in part as summaries of the substance. It includes assessments and
evaluations by the retained law firm, among other things regarding the
credibility of witness statements. The version dated January 31, 2024—which,
incidentally, is identical in content to the one dated February 6, 2024—also contains
additional legal commentary and client advisories.
3 3 8 AZR 169/25 dated April 16, 2026 | rewis.io
The plaintiff has been on parental leave since July 21, 2023. In a letter dated
February 20, 2024, the defendant applied to the competent Labor Inspectorate
to have the extraordinary, or alternatively ordinary, termination of the employment relationship with
the plaintiff during her parental leave declared permissible. It based its
argument on the findings of the compliance investigation. The
Labor Inspectorate did not approve the intended termination.
4 The plaintiff argued that, pursuant to Art. 15(1) in conjunction with (3)
of the GDPR, she has a right to receive copies of the compliance
final reports. She wished to verify which statements had been made about her and
stored, whether these statements are accurate, and how they were determined.
The rights of the defendant or third parties do not preclude disclosure.
5 The defendant contested the claim. The term “copy” in Article 15
(3) of the GDPR does not refer to a document as such, but rather to the
personal data it contains. The requirements for an
exceptional right to copies of the entire documents are
not met. The plaintiff’s arguments do not justify the assumption that
she requires such copies in the interest of effective data protection. The
defendant has an interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the compliance final reports as trade secrets that outweigh
the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining information. The
reports allow inferences to be drawn about the defendant’s litigation strategy and also contain
data worthy of protection regarding the whistleblowers and witnesses to whom the defendant
had promised confidentiality.
6 The Labor Court ordered the defendant to provide the plaintiff with a copy of the
final compliance report dated January 31, 2024. The
defendant filed an appeal against this decision and substantiated it in a brief dated April 22,
2025, served on the plaintiff on April 23, 2025. On appeal,
the defendant clarified that, in addition to the version dated January 31, 2024, a
further version of the final report dated February 6, 2024, existed. The plaintiff
thereupon, in a brief dated June 10, 2025, requested for the first time that a
copy of the version dated February 6, 2024, be provided.
7 Upon the defendant’s appeal, the Regional Labor Court amended the judgement of the
Labor Court and dismissed the motions to provide copies
of the reports in the versions dated January 31, 2024, and February 6, 2024
. However, the Regional Labor Court ordered the defendant, in accordance with the
alternative motion filed in the appellate proceedings, to grant the plaintiff access to the
compliance final report in the version dated February 6, 2024.
8 With the appeal authorized by the Regional Labor Court regarding the provision of copies,
the plaintiff continues to pursue the corresponding motions. She
also seeks, for the first time and as a matter of priority in the appeal proceedings, the provision
of the final compliance reports, including an interim report dated October 19, 2023, which is statically referenced therein 4 8 AZR 169/25 dated April 16, 2026 | rewis.io
an interim report dated October 19, 2023. She states that, in the meantime,
based on the appellate judgment, she reviewed the final report in the version dated
February 6, 2024, and found that it contained only an
sub-report and that essential content was contained exclusively in an
interim report dated October 19, 2023, to which reference was made.
9 She therefore requests, in summary, in the appeal proceedings,
that the defendant be ordered to provide her
with a copy of the compliance
final report dated
January 31, 2024, including the
first interim report referenced
the
interim report dated
October 19, 2023,
or, in the alternative, in the event that
the motion
under 1, to order the defendant to
provide a copy of the
compliance final report
dated January 31, 2024, in the
2nd
version dated February 6, 2024,
including the interim report dated
October 19, 2023, to which it statically
refers,
be made available,
alternatively, in the event that
the claims
under 1. and 2. are denied, to order the defendant
3. to provide a copy of the
final compliance report
dated January 31, 2024, to
be made available,
alternatively, in the event that
the claims
1 through 3 are unsuccessful, order Defendant No. 5 8 AZR 169/25 dated April 16, 2026 | rewis.io
to provide a copy of the
final compliance report
dated January 31, 2024, as
amended on February 6, 2024.
10 The defendant seeks dismissal of the appeal.
Reasons for the Decision
11 I. The plaintiff’s appeal is unsuccessful. The Regional Labor Court
correctly made the decision that the plaintiff has no right to
receive a copy of the final compliance reports.
12 1. Insofar as the plaintiff, in the appeal proceedings, now primarily seeks, through claims 1 and 2,
now primarily seeks, in the appeal proceedings, to be provided with a copy of the final compliance report in
the version dated January 31, 2024, or, in the alternative, in the version dated February 6, 2024,
including the interim report dated
October 19, 2023, to which it statically refers, this constitutes an impermissible
expansion of the claim in the appellate proceedings.
13 a) By including the interim report dated October 19, 2023, in the
substantive claims raised in the appeal proceedings, the plaintiff introduces a further
subject matter of the dispute. The introduction of a further subject matter of the dispute constitutes an
amendment to the lawsuit or is at least equivalent to one (BAG March 20, 2024 – 5 AZR
161/23 – para. 23 with further references).
14 aa) Based on the two-part concept of the subject matter of the dispute, the
subject matter of the proceedings is determined by the claim asserted (statement of claim) and the
underlying factual circumstances (grounds of the claim) (BAG June 26, 2025 - 8 AZR
276/24 – para. 17, with further references). The factual circumstances encompass the entire set of actual events underlying the claim,
which, when viewed from the natural perspective
of the parties, form part of or would have formed part of the set of facts presented by the
plaintiff for the court’s decision
(see BAG March 20, 2024 – 5 AZR 161/23 – para. 24, with further references).
15 bb) The inclusion of the interim report dated October 19, 2023, alters
the lawsuits and the underlying facts of the case. Conversely,
the plaintiff cannot successfully argue that, prior to reviewing the report,
that the information was fully contained in the final reports
and that she merely specified the claims in the appeal proceedings,
because the interim report of October 19, 2023, was already part of the
reports already at issue in the appellate proceedings. This is contradicted by
the fact that the plaintiff had already distinguished in the lawsuit between the compliance 6 8 AZR 169/25 of April 16, 2026 | rewis.io
Final Report dated January 31, 2024, and the Interim Report dated October 19,
2023. The motion in the lawsuit, however, refers
exclusively to the Final Report dated January 31, 2024, without including the
to include the interim report of October 19, 2023, which was known to the plaintiff in the lawsuit. Had the
plaintiff intended to include the interim report of October 19, 2023, along with the
request for a copy of the final report, it would have been expected
that she would have included the interim report in the request. This is
particularly true given that, on appeal, the plaintiff
further distinguished between the requests and explicitly differentiated between the final reports
in the version dated January 31, 2024, and the version dated February 6, 2024
. However, she still
did not include the interim report dated October 19, 2023, in her request.
16 b) The amendment to the complaint is inadmissible in the appeal for review.
17 aa) Pursuant to § 559(1), first sentence, of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), an amendment to the complaint in the appeal for review
is generally inadmissible. The conclusion of the oral hearing in the second
instance forms the basis for the decision of the
court of appeal not only with regard to the factual arguments but also
with regard to the parties’ claims. However, the petition may be amended in the appeal for review by the
appellant if the amended factual claim
can be based on facts established in the appellate court or
unanimously presented by the parties, the legal
scope of review does not change significantly, and the procedural rights of the other
party are not curtailed by a decision on the merits (BAG September 19, 2024
— 8 AZR 368/22 — para. 18 with further references).
18 bb) These requirements for an admissible amendment to the complaint in the appeal on points of law
are not met. With regard to the interim report dated
October 19, 2023, the facts have neither been established by the Regional Labor Court nor are they
undisputed between the parties. While it may be assumed that it is undisputed between the parties
that such an interim report exists, it is not undisputed what its
essential content is or how it differs in detail from the respective final report
. Furthermore, the defendant’s procedural rights could be violated
if it were now confronted in the appellate proceedings with an amendment to the complaint
regarding the interim report. It cannot be ruled out
that the defendant could have presented further facts regarding the interim report
that would argue against the disclosure of a copy, had the
amendment to the lawsuit had been made in the lower courts.
19 2. The admissible appeal is unfounded to the extent that the plaintiff, in its most recent
motion under No. 3, seeks, in the alternative, to order the defendant to provide a copy
of the compliance final report in the version dated January 31, 2024, to
be made available. 7 8 AZR 169/25 of April 16, 2026 | rewis.io
20
a) The Regional Labor Court correctly held that the plaintiff
has no right to be provided with a copy pursuant to Art. 15(1) in conjunction with (3)
of the GDPR with respect to the entire final compliance report in the version
dated January 31, 2024—i.e., including the legal analysis and
client notes.
21 aa) Under Article 15(1), first sentence, of the GDPR, the data subject generally has the
right to request from their employer, as the controller (Article 4(7) of the GDPR), a
confirmation as to whether personal data concerning them
is being processed. If this is the case, the data subject has, pursuant to
Article 15(1), second clause, of the GDPR, the data subject is entitled to
information regarding this personal data and the information specified in Article 15(1)(a) through (h) of the GDPR. Article 15(3), first sentence, of the GDPR also grants the
data subject the right to receive a copy
of the personal data. Article 15(1) and (3) of the GDPR are among the
provisions intended to guarantee the right of access as well as transparency regarding the Art and
manner of the processing of personal data vis-à-vis the data subject
(CJEU October 26, 2023 – C-307/22 – [FT] para. 49). The
right of access provided for in Article 15 of the GDPR must, according to the
case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, enable the data subject to
verify whether the data concerning them is accurate and whether it is being processed lawfully
. This right of access is necessary to enable the data subject
to exercise, where appropriate, their right to rectification, their
right to erasure (“right to be forgotten”) and their right to
Restriction of processing, to which they are entitled under Articles 16, 17, and 18 of the GDPR,
respectively, as well as their right under Article 21 of the GDPR to object to
the processing of their personal data or their rights under Articles 79 and 82
of the GDPR) to seek judicial remedy or
compensation for damages (CJEU February 27, 2025—C-203/22—[Dun &
Bradstreet Austria], para. 53 et seq.).
22 bb) Article 15(3), first sentence, of the GDPR does not constitute a right other than that provided for in Article 15
(1) of the GDPR and does not confer an independent claim against
the controller for the provision of the document as such,
but rather for the personal data it contains, which must be complete
(CJEU October 26, 2023—C-307/22—[FT], para. 72; May 4, 2023—C-487/21—
[Austrian Data Protection Authority] para. 32, 39). Thus, Article 15(3) of the GDPR
governs a procedure for exercising the right and is inextricably linked to Article 15(1)
of the GDPR. The copy must contain all personal data that
is the subject of the processing (CJEU, October 26, 2023 – C-307/22 – [FT], loc. cit.;
May 4, 2023—C-487/21—[Austrian Data Protection Authority], loc. cit.). This means
that the data subject must be provided with a faithful and comprehensible reproduction
of all such data. This right presupposes the right to obtain a copy
of excerpts from documents, or even of entire documents, or of 8 8 AZR 169/25 dated April 16, 2026 | rewis.io
excerpts from databases containing, among other things, this data, if the
provision of such a copy is essential to enable the data subject
to effectively exercise the rights granted to them by this Regulation
, whilst taking into account the rights and freedoms of others in this regard
(CJEU October 26, 2023 - C-307/22 - [FT] para. 75; May 4, 2023 -
C-487/21 - [Austrian Data Protection Authority] para. 45). In this regard, the Court of Justice
of the European Union has held, with respect to Art. 12(1) of the GDPR in conjunction with
Recital 58 of the GDPR, that the reproduction of
excerpts from documents or even entire documents may prove particularly
ensure that the information provided is easily understandable,
if contextualizing the data during processing
is necessary to ensure its comprehensibility (CJEU October 26, 2023 -
C-307/22 - [FT] para. 74; May 4, 2023 - C-487/21 - [Austrian Data Protection Authority]
para. 41; see also Federal Court of Justice (BGH) March 5, 2024 – VI ZR 330/21 – para. 18).
23 cc) Based on this, the Regional Labor Court correctly concluded
that the final compliance report, as of January 31,
2024, does not contain exclusively personal data. The
Regional Labor Court also correctly held that the plaintiff could not
demand a copy of the entire report on the grounds that
contextualization of the personal data would be necessary to ensure its
comprehensibility.
24 (1) The final compliance report in the version dated January 31, 2024, does
indeed contain personal data. According to the legal definition contained in Art. 4(1) of the GDPR,
personal data means any information relating to an
identified or identifiable natural person—the data subject—
. The concept of personal data must be interpreted broadly in light of the
phrasing “any information” (see CJEU, June 22, 2023—
C-579/21—[Pankki S], para. 42; May 4, 2023—C-487/21—[Austrian
Data Protection Authority], para. 23). It is not limited to sensitive or private information
but potentially encompasses all types of information, both
objective and subjective in nature, in the form of statements or
assessments, provided that the information relates “to” the
individual in question (CJEU June 22, 2023 - C-579/21 - [Pankki S], loc. cit.;
May 4, May 2023—C-487/21—[Austrian Data Protection Authority], loc. cit.; December 20,
2017—C-434/16—[Nowak], para. 34). The final compliance report in the version
dated January 31, 2024, addresses the plaintiff’s conduct as a manager and
therefore necessarily contains information “about” the plaintiff as a
person.
25 (2) However, the final compliance report in the version dated January 31, 2024, does
not exclusively contain personal data within the meaning of Art. 4(1) of the GDPR. The
legal arguments contained solely in the version dated January 31, 2024,
do not constitute personal data insofar as they contain a legal analysis. 9 8 AZR 169/25 dated April 16, 2026 | rewis.io
legal analysis. A legal analysis is not
information about the data subject, but at most—insofar as it is
not limited to a purely abstract interpretation of the law—information
regarding how the controller assesses the legal situation (see
CJEU July 17, 2014—C-141/12 et al.—[YS et al.] para. 40). The legal situation in this regard has been sufficiently clarified by
the Court of Justice of the European Union, regardless of the fact that
the decision regarding the concept of personal data was issued in relation to
Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46/EC (contrary view: Tegel/Lembke, NZA-RR 2026,
121, 125). This predecessor provision is comparable to Art. 4(1) of the GDPR (see
Federal Court of Justice [BGH], June 15, 2021 – VI ZR 576/19 – para. 29).
26 (3) There are no indications that the plaintiff requires a copy of the final report in the
version dated January 31, 2024, including the legal analysis and
client notices, in order to ensure the comprehensibility of the
contained in the final report, are not apparent. These
are, in essence, distinct components of the report, even
if they are contextually related (contrary view: Zöll/Kielkowski, jurisPR-
Compl 1/2026, note 3). Nor does the plaintiff require knowledge of the legal
analyses and client notices in order to exercise the rights
conferred upon her by the General Data Protection
Regulation—namely, the rights to rectification, erasure, and
restriction of processing under Articles 16, 17, and 18 of the GDPR, respectively, with respect to
her personal data. To the extent that she wishes to challenge a
legal opinion of the defendant or its
advisors that she considers incorrect, she may, if necessary, make use of her procedural options—e.g.,
in the context of an unfair dismissal lawsuit. Therefore,
the requirement to provide complete information regarding personal data does not give rise to a claim by the plaintiff that—as she has demanded—
the final report be provided in its entirety, even if partially redacted, as a copy
(see BGH April 16, 2024—VI ZR 223/21—para. 18; see para. 32 below regarding redaction
).
27 b) A claim for the provision of a copy of the compliance final report in
the version dated January 31, 2024, does not arise from either para 26(2) SprAuG
or para 83(1) BetrVG. It can therefore be left open whether the plaintiff—
in accordance with the parties’ view—is or was a senior executive within the meaning of § 5(3)
BetrVG.
28 aa) Under § 26(2) SprAuG and § 83(1) BetrVG, which are identical in both wording and
substance (see BAG, Nov. 16, November 2010 – 9 AZR 573/09 –
para. 21, BAGE 136, 156) the right to inspect the personnel files maintained about them
. According to the substantive definition, personnel files are a
collection of documents and records concerning the personal and professional
circumstances of the employee and intrinsically related to
the employment relationship. An external classification is not relevant in this context
(BAG October 17, 2024 - 8 AZR 42/24 - para. 28 with further references).10 8 AZR 169/25 of April 16, 2026 | rewis.io
29
bb) The right of access includes the right to make copies from the
personnel file at one’s own expense (ErfK/Kania, 26th ed., BetrVG § 83, para. 4, with further references). This
right is, however, limited to a reasonable scope. This scope is
no longer maintained if the employee wishes to copy the personnel records in their entirety
(GK-BetrVG/Franzen, 13th ed., BetrVG § 83, para. 24 et seq.; Richardi, BetrVG/
Thüsing, 18th ed., BetrVG § 83, para. 17; HaKo-BetrVG/Boemke, 7th ed., BetrVG § 83, para. 19).
Based on this, neither § 26(2) SprAuG nor § 83(1) BetrVG establishes any
right for the plaintiff to receive a
in its entirety. Irrespective of this,
it appears doubtful whether the legal analyses and client advisories contained in the version dated January 31, 2024,
can be regarded as part of the substantive
personnel file.
30 3. The appeal is also unfounded with respect to the alternative claim under 4., by which the
plaintiff seeks to be provided with a copy of the compliance final report in the version
dated February 6, 2024. The plaintiff asserted this claim
by way of an inadmissible cross-appeal.
31 a) The plaintiff first raised this claim in the appellate proceedings in a brief dated June 10,
2025, “to order the defendant, in addition, to … provide a copy of the
final compliance report dated February 6, 2024.” With
this wording of the request, the plaintiff makes it clear that, in addition to or
in any event, in the alternative to a copy of the report in the version dated January 31, 2024,
a copy of the report in the version dated February 6, 2024. This constitutes
an expansion of the issues in dispute. The reports in the versions dated
January 31, 2024, and February 6, 2024, differ in content. They are
therefore different documents. Accordingly, the plaintiff clarified during
the oral hearing before the State Labor Court, as evidenced by the
minutes of the hearing, clarified that it understood the motion seeking a copy of the version of the report
dated February 6, 2024 as an amendment to the complaint in the
appeal proceedings. The defendant expressly stated that it
consented to the amendment to the complaint. The
State Labor Court based its
reasons for the judgment on the fact that this constitutes an amendment to the complaint
in this respect. The plaintiff did not contest this in the appeal proceedings.
32 b) The plaintiff cannot successfully argue that the request for
the production of a copy of the compliance final report in the version dated January 31,
January 2024 had already previously been interpreted as a “lesser” claim seeking the production
of a copy of the report dated January 31, 2024, with partial redaction
. An interpretation of the original request for disclosure of the report
dated January 31, 2024, to the effect that legal analyses and
client advisories may be redacted is ruled out (see, regarding the interpretation of
requests for information under Art. 15(1) in conjunction with (3) of the GDPR: BGH March 5, 2024 – VI ZR
330/21 – para. 19). The existence of a version with and a version without legal11 8 AZR 169/25 dated April 16, 2026 | rewis.io
explanations and client notices became known to the plaintiff on appeal
. She took this as an opportunity to amend her lawsuit.
Such a move would have been unnecessary had there been a proper
understanding of the original lawsuit. It can therefore remain undecided whether the
plaintiff’s interpretation of the lawsuit would have led to a sufficiently specific lawsuit
.
33 c) The amendment to the lawsuit in the appellate proceedings was possible for the plaintiff, as
the respondent on appeal, only by way of a cross-appeal. Thus, the
amendment to the lawsuit must be interpreted as a cross-appeal, even if it is not designated as such
(see BAG, October 1, 2025—4 AZR 285/24—para. 92 et seq.; August 21, 2019—
7 AZR 563/17 - para. 66; December 10, 2014 - 7 AZR 1009/12 - para. 54). However, the
cross-appeal was not filed within the prescribed time limit.
34 aa) Pursuant to § 524(2), second sentence, of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), a cross-appeal is admissible until the expiration of the
time limit set for the respondent to file a response to the appeal. In
labor court proceedings, however—unlike under § 521(2), para 1, of the ZPO—
the Court does not “set” a time limit for the respondent to file a response to the appeal; rather, rather, the statutory time limit specified in § 66(1), para 3,
of the Labor Court Act (ArbGG) applies to the response to the appeal. Nevertheless, § 524(2), para 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) is applicable by analogy pursuant to
§ 64(6), para 1, of the Labor Court Act (ArbGG). A cross-appeal that
is not filed within one month after service of the statement of grounds for appeal—in the event of
an extension of the time limit for filing a response to the appeal pursuant to § 66(1), para 5, ArbGG
within the period then applicable—is to be dismissed as
inadmissible pursuant to § 522(1) of the ZPO if the appellate court, upon service of the
statement of grounds for appeal, provided the notice required under § 66(1), para 4 of the ArbGG regarding
the deadline for filing a response to the appeal pursuant to § 66(1), sentence 4, ArbGG (BAG March 25, 2021—8 AZR 120/20—
para. 52; August 21, 2019 - 7 AZR 563/17 - para. 68). The requirement to file a
cross-appeal within the time limit for filing a response to the appeal and to
substantiate it is intended to facilitate the resolution of the appeal proceedings. An exception
to this time limit for reasons of procedural economy is not permissible in light of its meaning
and purpose, nor in light of the constitutional requirement of
equality of arms in civil procedure (see BGH August 31, 2022 - VIII ZR
233/21 - para. 72 et seq.).
35 bb) These requirements for an admissible cross-appeal are not met.
The appellate court must examine this ex officio (BAG May 24, 2012 – 2 AZR
124/11—para. 10; Federal Court of Justice (BGH) October 24, 2007—IV ZR 12/07—para. 7). The defendant filed the
grounds for the appeal in a brief dated April 22, 2025, which was served on the plaintiff on April 23,
2025. The Regional Labor Court advised the plaintiff pursuant to § 66(1), fourth para,
of the ArbGG, that the appeal must be answered within a period of one month
following service of the statement of grounds for the appeal. The plaintiff
answered the appeal within the prescribed time limit by a brief dated May 23, 2025, on the last day of the
time limit. However, the lawsuit seeking the production of a copy of the
compliance final report in the version dated February 6, 2024, was not filed until 12 8 AZR 169/25 dated April 16, 2026 | rewis.io
Cross-appeal, however, the plaintiff did not file her response until June 10, 2025,
and thus after the deadline for responding to the appeal had expired.
36 II. The decision on costs is based on § 97(1) ZPO.
Krumbieg
Roloff Pulz
el
Volz Wittke
