On May 6, 2025, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2025:1204) issued a decision regarding whether a client can be held liable for psychological harm allegedly suffered by a freelancer (zzp’er) due to harmful working conditions.
What was the case about?
A freelancer, engaged via a broker, performed specialized network tasks in the IT department of the Dutch Social Insurance Bank (SVB). The freelancer claimed to have developed psychological complaints as a result of bullying, excessive workload, and an unsafe working environment.
The freelancer sought a declaratory decision that SVB was liable for both material and immaterial damages caused by the actions of SVB’s subordinates — primarily based on employer’s liability (Section 7:658(4) Dutch Civil Code) and, alternatively, on the basis of liability for subordinates (Section 6:170 Dutch Civil Code). The subdistrict court rejected his claims, after which the freelancer appealed.
What was the court’s judgment?
The Court of Appeal examined several incidents, including the so-called ‘server room incident’ (where the freelancer was locked in for a period due to a blocked access pass) and the ‘flex desk incident’ (where his workspace was taken over and his belongings were thrown on the floor). The court found that the server room incident was an unfortunate coincidence and did not constitute evidence of bullying. The flex desk incident was considered inappropriate, but since SVB handled the situation adequately, there was no breach of the duty of care.
Other complaints regarding workload and an unsafe atmosphere were also found to be insufficiently substantiated. Timesheets and statements provided did not show any structural problems or bullying. The court concluded that the alleged harmful working conditions and breaches of duty of care were not proven. The freelancer’s claims were again dismissed.
What is the conclusion?
This ruling confirms that a commissioning party is not easily held liable for psychological harm suffered by a freelancer unless there is clear evidence of structural shortcomings or recognizable breaches of the duty of care.