Working Time Registration: A New Era for Belgium? (kopie dd 09/12/2025 14:50:59)

Obligation Following ECJ Decisions?

It is often suggested that Belgian law does not align with European law and therefore requires the introduction of a general time registration obligation. 

There is however no European legislation explicitly requiring Member States to implement a time registration system. The debate stems from two ECJ rulings in 2019 and 2024 (CCOO and Loredas) interpreting, among other things, the EU Working Time Directive 2003/88, which sets minimum rest periods and maximum weekly working time.

In these rulings, the ECJ confirmed that:

• Member States must ensure that minimum rest periods are observed and prevent the maximum weekly working time from being exceeded.
• Directive 2003/88 does not establish the specific arrangements by which Member States must ensure the implementation of these rights.
• Member States have discretion in adopting the specific arrangements to implement the rights provided by the directive.

However, the ECJ ruled that Member States must require employers to set up an objective, reliable, and accessible system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured.

Both ECJ rulings concerned disputes under Spanish law. It remains to be seen whether the many safeguards in Belgian law for compliance with maximum working hours and rest periods would not pass the test of conformity with the Directive.

It is argued that the following Belgian legal measures may already suffice to pass the conformity test: for example, it is mandatory to include the start and end of the regular working day, the time and duration of rest periods, and the days of regular interruption of work in the work regulations, which can only be introduced or amended with employee (or works council) input. There is also a statutory prohibition on working outside these times. Overtime is possible but subject to various formalities and safeguards. In situations of flexible work (variable hours), where there is inherently more uncertainty about the hours worked, there is already a legal obligation to provide a detailed time-tracking system.

What Is an Objective, Reliable, and Accessible System?

The question remains: which systems objectively, reliably, and accessibly measure daily working time? Clock-in systems, which measure presence rather than actual working time, are not necessarily the most adequate response to the ECJ rulings. Digital time tracking (computer activity) in remote work situations cannot adequately capture periods of inactivity while logged in, or activity while logged out. And self-reporting systems (whether completed by employer or employee) are by definition subjective.

More fundamentally, one may wonder whether situations where employees feel compelled to remain clocked-in —despite having finished their work— , or where employees focus more on clocking hours than on the substance of their work, are the right way forward in times when direct employer control is eroding and trust, autonomy, and results-driven work are becoming the standard in many organizations.

Proponents see time registration as a tool to ensure accurate wage calculation and objective tracking of absences. Some even believe it can improve work-life balance and protect against overload. But the same measure that aims to support flexibility risks restricting it. Employees often perceive mandatory registration as a form of control, clashing with their need for autonomy.

What’s next?

How the working time measurement should look in practice is not yet clear. Likely, any system that is “objective, reliable, and accessible” will be considered as compliant. With the above question remaining: which systems do objectively, reliably, and accessibly measure daily working time?