On 21 February 2025, the Supreme Court issued an important ruling in the case between the FNV trade union and the Uber taxi company. The case concerned the question of whether Uber taxi drivers should be considered independent entrepreneurs or employees. The ruling not only has consequences for Uber and the platform economy, but also affects the broader discussion about labour law and pseudo self-employment that we have already discussed in previous blogs.

The case in brief

In short, FNV argued that the taxi drivers work on the basis of employment contracts, which means that Uber is obliged to comply with the Taxi Transport Collective Agreement. Uber, on the other hand, argued that the taxi drivers should be considered independent entrepreneurs. In 2021, the Amsterdam District Court ruled in favour of FNV. Uber appealed this decision. During the proceedings, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal submitted questions to the Supreme Court for a preliminary ruling. The key question concerned the role of entrepreneurship in the assessment of whether or not an employment contract exists. The Supreme Court formulated an important new principle regarding the order of importance of the viewpoints that are taken into consideration in this assessment. These (nine) viewpoints were previously set out by the Supreme Court in the Deliveroo ruling.

No fixed order of priority: all circumstances of the case count

Until now, the assessment of whether or not an employment contract exists has been tested against the criteria from article 7:610 of the Dutch Civil Code, namely:.

1. The obligation to personally perform work;
2. Wage payment by the employer;
3. The existence of a relationship of authority between employer and employee.

.
Although these criteria are still leading, the Supreme Court has clarified that there is no fixed ranking between the various circumstances that determine whether an employment relationship should be qualified as an employment contract. This means that all factors must be assessed in relation to each other, without a predetermined ranking.

The Supreme Court emphasises in the Uber case that:.

• Entrepreneurship can be a relevant factor in assessing whether an employment contract exists, but it is not a decisive factor. The mere fact that someone presents themselves as self-employed, is registered with the Chamber of Commerce or invests in their work does not automatically mean that there is no employment contract.
• Two workers in a comparable position can be categorised differently. This means that one Uber driver can be considered self-employed, while another Uber driver is covered by an employment contract, depending on the actual circumstances.
• The economic reality and actual execution of the work remain central. The contractual form is not decisive; what matters is how the employment relationship functions in practice.

.
You can read the full ruling here.

What does this ruling mean in practice?

The ruling has far-reaching consequences, both for Uber and for other platform companies and employers who work with self-employed people, such as in the cultural sector, construction and healthcare..

1. More room for customisation, but also more uncertainty
   Now that there is no fixed ranking, careful consideration of the circumstances must be made on a case-by-case basis. This offers room for customisation, but can also lead to uncertainty: workers and employers are less sure in advance how their employment relationship will be legally qualified.
2. Possible impact on legislation and enforcement
   Now that the Supreme Court has abandoned the hierarchy of criteria, enforcement by agencies such as the Tax Administration and the Social Affairs and Employment Inspectorate may change. In addition, the ruling could lead to changes in legislation, for example in the context of the Assessment of Employment Relationships Act and future self-employment regulations.
3. More risks for employers and platform companies
   Now that there is no clear framework, companies run a greater risk of additional assessments, fines and claims if it is later determined that workers were wrongly classified as self-employed. This means that it is crucial for companies to seek thorough legal advice when designing employment relationships.

.
What can companies and workers do?

It is essential for both employers and workers to carefully analyse how their employment relationship has been structured and how it functions in practice. Now that there is no longer a fixed hierarchy in the assessment, a customised approach is necessary.

At SPEE advocaten & mediation, we are ready to advise you on the implications of this ruling. Our employment law specialists can help you navigate this complex matter and make informed choices.