The recent ruling by the Dutch Supreme Court (ECLI:NL:HR:2025:319) in the Uber case has reignited the debate over the classification of employment relationships. The central question in this case was whether Uber drivers should be regarded as employees or as independent contractors (self-employed individuals). This issue is not only pertinent to Uber but also has broader implications for how we define labor in the modern economy. The key takeaways from this ruling are therefore outlined below.
No hierarchy, yet significant considerations
The Supreme Court did not establish a hierarchy among the various factors relevant to the classification of an employment relationship, as set forth in the Deliveroo judgment. This means that entrepreneurship is as important as other factors, such as the degree of independence and the nature of remuneration. It can even be decisive, particularly when a worker clearly manifests as an entrepreneur in the economic sphere.
Entrepreneurship as a key factor
In the Uber case, the Supreme Court clarified that the criterion of ‘entrepreneurship’ plays an important role in determining whether an employment contract exists. This implies that not only the internal working relationship between the driver and Uber is relevant, but also external factors such as the number of clients, registration with the Chamber of Commerce, and investments in one’s own business. This broader perspective on entrepreneurship can lead to different assessments for two drivers performing the same work: one may be classified as an employee and the other as an independent contractor, depending on their entrepreneurial activities outside of Uber.
Future legislation and implications
There is currently a legislative proposal aimed at reducing the weight of ‘external entrepreneurship’ in the classification of an employment relationship. Until this legislation is approved and implemented, entrepreneurship remains a significant factor. This creates a complex situation for both employers and workers, where the boundary between employee and independent contractor can be difficult to determine. It is essential for both parties to establish clarity in advance regarding their intentions and the practical execution of the working relationship.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the necessity for a nuanced approach in the classification of employment relationships. While entrepreneurship plays a central role, it is only one of many factors that must be considered. As lawmakers work on new regulations, it remains important for businesses and workers to carefully navigate this dynamic environment. Seeking legal advice is advisable to ensure that the chosen employment relationship aligns with the reality and intentions of both parties.