The works council decides, the employer pays.

Yes. Under Section 40 (2) BetrVG the employer must provide the resources necessary for the day-to-day conduct of the works council's business, to the extent required. The works council decides on necessity within its margin of judgement; it only has to demonstrate that necessity in a comprehensible way.

Case law (Federal Labour Court, 20 April 2016 – 7 ABR 50/14) allows the employer to point to existing, functionally equivalent tools. General office and communication software such as MS Teams or Office is not functionally equivalent, however: it knows neither the quorum check under Section 33, nor the substitute-member logic, nor the calculation of notice periods, nor audit-proof, immutable minutes under Section 34. These are exactly the works-constitution functions Mandat provides.

For the use of digital meeting and voting tools – in particular for video and hybrid meetings – the modernising line of case law (Munich Regional Labour Court, 7 December 2023 – 2 TaBV 31/23) regularly presupposes rules of procedure under Section 30 (2) BetrVG. Rules of procedure governing the form and conduct of digital meetings therefore strengthen the case for necessity.

No. The co-determination right under Section 87 (1) no. 6 BetrVG concerns technical equipment introduced by the employer, not software the works council introduces for its own work. What is relevant here is Section 79a BetrVG: the works council must comply with data protection law and regulate the relationship with the employer accordingly (data processing agreement). Mandat's self-hosting and encryption make this easier.