In daily practice, employers often have to deal not only with employment contracts, but also with contracts for services. Can such a contract be terminated with immediate effect, or is a self-employed person also entitled to a notice period? The answer to this question can be found here:
What was this case about?
In this case, Sakro Services BV performed work for Higher Skills BV on the basis of a contract for services for a period of six months. The work was carried out at a third party, A-ware Ripening BV. The contract contained various provisions on early termination.
During the term of the agreement, A-ware terminated Sakro's employment with immediate effect. Higher Skills then also terminated the agreement with Sakro with immediate effect. Higher Skills invoked Article 6(4)(vii) of the contract with Sakro:
The agreement may in any case be terminated prematurely by the client with immediate effect without the client being liable for damages if: […]
vii. the third party has terminated the agreement with the client – insofar as it relates to the deployment of the contractor – for any reason whatsoever.
Sakro had sent another invoice, which Higher Skills did not pay. Sakro went to court in order to claim payment of the invoice in summary proceedings. In that context, Sakro invoked another (earlier) provision of the agreement, Article 6(1), which reads as follows:
The agreement concluded between the parties may be terminated by either party by registered letter or by email, subject to a notice period of one month, without any form of compensation being payable to the other party for any reason whatsoever. The foregoing does not affect the fact that the agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement between the parties at a date to be determined, with or without immediate effect.
In short: Sakro invokes the one-month notice period, which is also included in the contract for services.
What is the court's ruling?
The court does not agree with Sakro. It rules that Article 6(4) takes precedence over the earlier paragraph 1 of this article. Higher Skills could therefore terminate the agreement with Sakro immediately because A-ware had terminated the agreement. According to Sakro, this is contrary to reasonableness and fairness: it claims to have only looked at paragraph 1 and overlooked paragraph 4. The court dismissed this argument: this was an agreement between two business parties, who could be expected to be aware of the agreements made. No special circumstances were found to exist. Sakro's claims were therefore rejected and Sakro was ordered to pay the legal costs.
The full ruling can be found here: ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2025:6636, Rechtbank Overijssel, 11901060 \ CV EXPL 25-2958
Our advice
In general, of course, it is important to know the agreement! In this case, we believe it was quite clear that the special provision in paragraph 4 took precedence over paragraph 1. In case of a chain of contracts, there is a good chance that a client will want to terminate the contract with the self-employed person (contractor) as soon as possible when the contract with the end customer ends. It is therefore certainly not the case that a self-employed person is by definition entitled to a notice period, as is the case when an employer terminates an employment contract.
Our advice to self-employed persons and clients is therefore not to sign a model agreement indiscriminately, but to discuss thoroughly what the agreements are if one of the parties no longer wishes to continue the collaboration or if the end customer pulls the proverbial plug. SPEE advocaten & mediation will be happy to assist you.