Term and Significance of Personal Purposes Activities
The activity for personal purposes is a central legal concept, particularly important in distinguishing between private acts and actions performed in the context of—primarily—official duties. This term plays a crucial role in criminal law, public service law, social security law, and public employment law. Activities for personal purposes describe actions carried out exclusively for private purposes and not in connection with the fulfillment of official, employment-related, or third-party interests.
Definition and Systematic Classification
Basic Definition
An activity for personal purposes is any action that primarily serves the personal, economic, family, or private interests of the individual acting. It stands in contrast to activities performed within the context of third-party-determined tasks, such as the exercise of a profession. The criterion of personal purpose is particularly relevant in assessing accidents and liability issues in social security law and within public employment relationships.
Distinguishing from Other Activities
An activity for personal purposes is to be distinguished from:
- Operational (official) activity: Actions carried out in the interest of the employer or for the purpose of fulfilling contractual or official duties.
- Mixed-motive activity: Actions in which personal and official/operational interests are combined. In such cases, the predominant motive must be weighed.
Relevance in Social Security Law
Statutory Foundations
The activity for personal purposes is particularly relevant in the context of statutory accident insurance coverage under Book Seven of the Social Code (SGB VII). According to Section 8(1) SGB VII, accidents occurring on the way to or from the workplace (commuting accidents) and during insured activities are generally covered by statutory accident insurance. However, accidents occurring during activities for personal purposes are excluded.
Typical examples of activities for personal purposes within the meaning of accident insurance:
- Eating and drinking for purely private reasons
- Using the restroom
- Private phone calls at the workplace with no official connection
- Reading private messages during working hours
Such activities are only insured if they are directly connected to the insured activity. If this connection no longer exists, the action is considered an activity for personal purposes.
The problem of commuting accidents
Statutory accident insurance generally does not cover trips undertaken for personal reasons, even if they are spatially or temporally related to the actual exercise of one’s profession. Exceptions may apply in individual cases, such as so-called accident-insured intermediate routes (e.g., stopping to refuel on the way to work).
Relevance in Civil Service and Public Employment Law
Service Accident and Personal Purpose Activity
According to the civil service laws of the federal states and the Federal Civil Service Act, accidents are recognized as service accidents if they are causally related to official duties. Activities for personal purposes, according to case law, do not represent actions caused by official duties, which is why accidents during such activities are generally not considered service accidents.
Distinction by Case Law
Case law regularly develops the concept of ‘direct connection’ with official duties to determine whether an act is an activity for personal purposes. The decisive factor is whether the nature of the activity objectively relates to official duties or primarily serves private interests.
Significance in Liability Law and Other Legal Areas
Activities for personal purposes also play a role in liability law, especially in the context of state liability (§ 839 BGB in conjunction with Article 34 GG). If damaging conduct is attributable to an activity for personal purposes, state liability is excluded, as there is no action ‘in the exercise of public office.’
In labor law, activities for personal purposes can be relevant to claims for damages, for example, if an employee causes damage through their own, non-official conduct.
Case Law and Practical Examples
Case Law on Distinction
Social and administrative court case law has developed numerous groups of cases to define the distinction between personal purpose activities and business/official activities. The decisive criterion is the objective purpose of the specific action at the time it occurs.
Examples from Case Law:
- BVerwG, Judgment of 27.10.2011 (2 C 4.10): Answering private phone calls during official time may constitute an activity for personal purposes and removes the connection with official duties.
- BSG, Judgment of 5.7.2016 (B 2 U 19/14 R): A detour taken by an employee for private reasons on the way to work can remove the accident insurance coverage.
Summary and Outlook
The activity for personal purposes is a legal term that gives rise to a variety of allocation and attribution problems. The exact classification of these actions is of decisive importance in many areas of law, for example regarding accident and liability regulations in social security law, public employment law, and general liability law. The decisive factors are always the motives and the actual circumstances of the action, with courts conducting a comprehensive case-by-case assessment. Future developments and the digitalization of the working world pose new challenges for the practical and legal interpretation of the term ‘activity for personal purposes.’
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the legal consequences of classifying an activity as one for personal purposes?
Classifying an action as one for personal purposes has significant legal implications, especially in the fields of tort and liability law and in social benefits (e.g., accident insurance). If an activity is deemed to be for personal purposes, it is legally considered a personal life event, not directly connected to professional activity or other insured activities. For example, accidents occurring during such activities are generally not recognized as occupational accidents within the meaning of statutory accident insurance. An employee who attends to a personal need (e.g., eating, going to the restroom) during a work break is outside the scope of statutory accident insurance protection for the duration of this activity. The same applies in tenancy and neighbor law, for example, when damage is caused by personal conduct and questions of attribution or liability become relevant.
How is the distinction from operational activities made in labor law?
In labor law, the distinction between an activity for personal purposes and an operational activity is generally made on the basis of the objective connection to contractually owed duties. An activity is for personal purposes if it primarily serves private, i.e., the employee’s own personal interests, and is not performed in the direct interest of the employer. Case law closely examines whether the material connection to the insured activity has been interrupted. Once this criterion is met, the employer’s occupational health and safety responsibilities for any resulting damages or accidents are excluded, unless in exceptional cases, business interests prevail.
What role does the activity for personal purposes play in liability law?
In liability law, activity for personal purposes plays a central role when determining responsibility for harmful events. Classification as an activity for personal purposes can lead to tortious liability pursuant to § 823 BGB resting solely with the actor since it is exclusively allocated to their personal sphere. Attribution of culpable behavior to the employer or a third party may also be excluded, since only wrongful behavior within the context of business or delegated activities is liable. Especially for vicarious agent liability (§ 831 BGB), it is crucial whether the harmful event occurred during an activity for personal purposes or in carrying out the delegated task.
How are routes to and from activities for personal purposes legally evaluated?
Legally, especially accident insurers and social courts distinguish very precisely between the actual route to, during, and after an activity for personal purposes. The rule is: The direct route to a personal activity (e.g., canteen, restroom) is generally no longer accident-insured, while operational routes (e.g., to a business meeting) remain insured. An exception applies if the route to the activity is closely connected with business purposes or motivated by official requirements; in such cases, protection may possibly be extended. The key factor is always the specific individual case, to be assessed in light of the relevant insurance and liability regime.
What rules of evidence apply in disputes about the classification of activities?
In case of dispute, the burden of proof generally lies with the claimant (usually the injured party or insured person) to show that a harmful act was not for personal purposes, but rather business-related or performed in the course of an insured activity. Proof requires a substantiated presentation of the direct connection with the relevant protection or liability norm. Courts assess the circumstances presented (e.g., witnesses, event logs, objective indicators) by taking the overall context into account and deduce which area (personal/business) the activity belongs to. Doubts are to the detriment of the claimant.
Are there differences in the public service sector in dealing with activities for personal purposes?
The term activity for personal purposes is also legally relevant in the public service—especially in civil service law and accident welfare. The principles largely correspond to those in general labor and social law. However, special service law regulations may include more far-reaching requirements, such as specific accident welfare regulations for civil servants, defining explicit exceptions from the exclusion of activities for personal purposes. Yet the core rule remains: Even for civil servants, accidents during activities for personal purposes are generally not covered under accident welfare for service accidents.
Where are the interfaces with other areas of law regarding activities for personal purposes?
Across legal areas, the assessment of personal purpose-activity plays a role, among others, in the following fields: labor law (e.g., liability, occupational safety), social law (accident insurance, health insurance), liability and tort law, and sometimes in criminal law (e.g., in negligence offenses overlapping private and official acts). Tenancy law issues are also relevant, e.g., in the use of rented property for one’s own purposes or when proving personal damages. The relevant regulations always refer to the objective purpose of the act and its context.
Can activities for personal purposes play a role in workplace co-determination or staff representation?
Yes, activities for personal purposes can also be relevant in the context of workplace co-determination rights and staff representation law, especially when they are the subject of workplace regulations or collective measures (e.g., break rules, use of social rooms). The distinction between activities with business relevance—which are subject to co-determination—and those falling within the private sphere of employees, is often linked to whether the action pertains to business interests or private matters. In some cases, the scope of collective influence is explicitly restricted by collective bargaining laws once clearly personal actions are involved.
