Key takeaways on the evidential value of time tracking
- The legal requirement to record working hours does not guarantee that the data produced will be admissible as evidence in court.
- The CJEU requires a system that is “objective, reliable, and accessible.”
- Without a qualified timestamp, data from time-tracking software remains subject to the judge’s sole discretion, without any legal presumption attached to it.
- For HR software providers, integrating a qualified timestamping layer is a way to differentiate their product in a competitive market.
Work time regulations: a mandatory record-keeping requirement for tracking
Labor law requires employers to track their employees’ working hours. However, the law does not specify the form or the level of technical reliability of the software used. Disputes over overtime regularly exploit this legal ambiguity.
The European and French framework for tracking working hours
Directive 2003/88/EC establishes the European rules on maximum working hours and minimum rest periods. It does not impose any requirements regarding the form or nature of the recording tools.
The Court of Justice of the European Union filled this gap with a ruling dated May 14, 2019, in Case C-55/18, CCOO v. Deutsche Bank¹: every employer must have a system in place to measure the daily working time of each employee. This system must be objective, reliable, and accessible. Far from being mere recommendations, these three criteria define the threshold below which a tool for tracking working time does not meet regulatory requirements.
Under French law, Article L. 3171-4 of the Labor Code sets forth the rules of evidence in the event of a dispute: the employer must provide the judge with evidence to substantiate the hours actually worked by the employee. The burden of proof is shared. The employer must produce tangible evidence. Software whose data is neither certified nor auditable directly exposes the company to this risk.
The criteria of “objective, reliable, and accessible” derived from European case law
These three terms are not interchangeable. They refer to distinct requirements, each of which has direct implications for the design of time-tracking software.
An objective system records working hours without relying on unilateral reports from employees or managers: data entry is automated or time-stamped at the source, rather than reconstructed retroactively.
A reliable system ensures that data cannot be altered without leaving a trace: corrections are logged, and changes are linked to a specific author and a specific time.
An accessible system provides this data on demand, in a readable and auditable format, without delay. Such requests typically come from the labor inspectorate, URSSAF, or a judge.
A European regulatory trend toward a tamper-proof digital registry
The CCOO1 ruling established the principle. Some Member States are beginning to draw operational conclusions from it.
In October 2025, the Spanish government submitted a draft royal decree2 for public comment that goes significantly further than European case law:
- mandatory digital registry for all businesses;
- prohibition on the use of paper documents and spreadsheets;
- Remote access by the labor inspectorate to real-time data.
The Spanish Council of State issued an unfavorable opinion in March 20263, making the adoption of the bill uncertain at this time. The trend remains clear, however: Spanish case law is already penalizing non-compliant registries without waiting for the decree.
In a decision dated September 24,20244, the Supreme Court reiterated that an internal approval system subject to hierarchical authorization deprives the record of the objectivity required by law and works against the employer.
For HR software providers operating in multiple European markets, this regulatory trend warrants their attention. “Objective, reliable, and accessible” could soon be interpreted as “digital, tamper-proof, and retrievable on demand”—a requirement that goes beyond standard data entry capabilities.
Tracking work hours: three high-risk situations
Time-tracking software may formally satisfy the record-keeping requirement but could nevertheless expose the employer to three types of situations in which the data it provides will not be sufficient.
In each of these cases, the question asked is not “Do you have a system?” but “Can you produce the data as admissible evidence?”
Labor court dispute over overtime
Article L. 3171-4 of the Labor Code establishes a system of shared burden of proof: the employee must provide evidence suggesting the existence of overtime, and the employer must produce evidence to refute it. This mechanism relies entirely on the quality of the data that the HR software is capable of generating.
The Court of Cassation clarified this framework in a ruling dated February 7, 20245: the absence of a reliable system does not deprive the employer of the ability to present evidence. However, such evidence remains subject to the judge’s sole discretion, without any attached legal presumption. The judge remains free to accept the employee’s version of events if the evidence presented does not convince the judge.
A log certified by a qualified timestamp has a different legal effect. Under Article 41 of the eIDAS Regulation, it is presumed by law to be accurate in terms of date and data integrity. It is then up to the party challenging these elements to rebut this presumption.
Audit and monitoring of working hours by the Labor Inspectorate or URSSAF
An audit is not the same as a legal dispute. The inspector requests immediate access to the data in a format that can be provided without delay.
Software whose export files require manual reprocessing, or whose data does not cover the history of changes, puts the employer in an awkward position, even if the recorded schedules are accurate.
URSSAF cross-checks the registry data with pay stubs. A discrepancy between the reported hours and the hours paid is enough to trigger a tax adjustment, regardless of whether there was any bad faith involved.
Software accessibility—that is, its ability to provide consistent, time-stamped, and auditable data on demand—is a design requirement for HR software vendors, not merely an option.
Internal fraud and unrecorded adjustments
Time-tracking software that allows retroactive corrections without logging the changes prevents the employer from distinguishing between a data entry error and deliberate falsification. In cases of ambiguity, the labor inspectorate may rule against the company.
Qualified time-stamping applied to key events in the ledger makes any subsequent modification detectable by a break in the cryptographic fingerprint.
This mechanism protects the employer from external disputes and the risk of internal fraud after the data has been time-stamped. It certifies the date and the integrity of the data at a given point in time.
Qualified Timestamping and time tracking: turning time sheets into irrefutable evidence
The three situations described above have one thing in common: they expose the employer whenever its software merely records data without certifying it. Qualified time-stamping helps bridge this gap.
The eIDAS Framework applied to key aspects of work time tracking
Article 41 of the eIDAS Regulation establishes a legal presumption of the accuracy of the date and the integrity of the data for any qualified time stamp issued by a qualified trust service provider.
In an HRIS, the events to be certified can be precisely identified:
- at the end of a period;
- managerial approval;
- exporting data to payroll;
- the correction log.
Each of these moments serves as an evidentiary anchor. The timestamp certifies the date and the integrity of the data at that moment, but not the accuracy of the information originally entered, which remains the responsibility of the person who recorded it.
A unique selling proposition for HR publishers
For software vendors targeting companies subject to frequent audits—particularly in the financial sector, digital services firms, or the service industry—the integration of a qualified timestamping layer has become a product differentiator in its own right.
Auditability, non-repudiation, and certified retrieval upon request are difficult to replicate without a dedicated architecture. They serve as a key differentiator from the competition.
The in-house development of HR tools is accelerating, driven by the “coding culture” and software in-sourcing practices, which lower the barriers to entry for data entry features. However, software produced in this context rarely meets evidentiary requirements.
Conclusion: turning work time tracking into legally enforceable evidence
Regulations require the recording of working hours, but do not guarantee that the logs are legally enforceable. In between lies a technical architecture that most time-tracking software has not yet incorporated.
Solutions such as Evidency enable HRIS vendors to integrate this layer of qualified timestamping via API, without having to overhaul their existing architecture.
Sources
[1] CJEU, May 14, 2019, Case C-55/18, CCOO v. Deutsche Bank: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0055
[2] Royal Decree implementing the consolidated text of the Workers' Statute regarding the recording of working hours: https://expinterweb.mites.gob.es/participa/listado/download/6cb63e79-48a8-4e99-9784-3a0b26ae6106
[3] PressDigital, "The Council of State Opposes the Work Time Tracking Reform Proposed by the Ministry of Labor," March 23, 2026: https://www.pressdigital.es/articulo/economia/2026-03-23/5819626-consejo-estado-posiciona-contra-reforma-registro-horario-impulsada-trabajo
[4] Supreme Court Decision No. 1161/2024 of September 24, 2024, cited in: TALABARDON, E., “Working Hours in Spain: How the New Law on Digital Time Tracking Affects Your Business,” March 5, 2026: https://www.inextenso.fr/magazin/gerer-mon-personnel/temps-de-travail-en-espagne-ce-que-la-nouvelle-loi-sur-le-pointage-digital-change-pour-votre-entreprise/
[5] Court of Cassation, Labor Division, February 7, 2024, No. 22-15.842: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000049130153
Disclaimer of liability
The opinions, presentations, figures and estimates presented on the website, including the blog, are intended for information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. For legal advice you should contact a legal professional in your jurisdiction.
The use of the content of this website, including the blog, for commercial purposes, including resale, is prohibited without prior authorization from Evidency. The request for permission must specify the purpose and extent of reproduction. For non-commercial purposes, all material in this publication may be freely quoted or reprinted, but acknowledgement is required, together with a link to this website.
