FNV v Deliveroo Netherlands B.V. – Amsterdam District Court, 15.01.2019, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2019:198
Published on:
The Amsterdam District Court held that the legal relationship between Deliveroo and its meal-delivery riders continued to qualify as an employment contract under Article 7:610 BW, despite Deliveroo's use of written “partner agreements” describing riders as independent contractors. The Court found that the introduction of the new contractual model had not fundamentally changed the relationship. It gave particular weight to the fact that the partner agreement was a standard contract drafted unilaterally by Deliveroo, that Deliveroo's digital systems materially influenced how riders obtained work, that there was little or no room for individual negotiation of remuneration, and that the contractual substitution possibility had limited practical significance.
1. Background and Legal Question
Deliveroo initially employed its Dutch riders under fixed-term employment contracts. From February 2018, it replaced these contracts with standard “partner agreements” that described the riders as independent contractors.
Riders could choose when to work, accept or refuse deliveries and formally use substitutes. FNV asked the Court to declare that the relationship nevertheless remained an employment contract under Article 7:610 BW.
Explanation
Deliveroo changed the riders’ contracts, but FNV argued that the actual working relationship had not changed enough to make them genuinely independent.
2. Court’s Assessment
The Court found several circumstances indicating employment:
Deliveroo drafted the partner agreement unilaterally;
Riders had little or no ability to negotiate their remuneration;
Deliveroo’s digital systems influenced access to future assignments and bonuses;
The work was integrated into Deliveroo’s business; and
The substitution clause had limited practical significance.
Although riders could choose when to work and refuse deliveries, these freedoms did not outweigh the circumstances indicating employment.
Explanation
Flexibility and a substitution clause did not automatically make the riders independent. The Court examined how much control and commercial freedom they actually had.
3. Decision
The District Court declared that the legal relationship between Deliveroo and its riders qualified as an employment contract under Article 7:610 BW. Deliveroo was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Explanation
FNV succeeded. The riders remained employees despite Deliveroo’s decision to describe them as independent contractors.
4. Subsequent Proceedings and Significance
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal confirmed the employment classification on 16 February 2021. On 24 March 2023, the Supreme Court left that classification in place and provided the leading Dutch framework for assessing employment status.
Explanation
The District Court’s conclusion was later upheld on appeal and in cassation.
Timeline
Amsterdam District Court
Amsterdam Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
Sources
- https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2019:198&utm=
- https://www.rechtspraak.nl/organisatie-en-contact/organisatie/rechtbanken/rechtbank-amsterdam/nieuws/2019/01/bezorgers-deliveroo-vallen-onder-arbeidsovereenkomst?utm=
- https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:392&utm=
- https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2023:443&utm=
Related knowledge
View all knowledgeFNV v Uber B.V. – Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 27.01.2026 ECLI: ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:163
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal rejected FNV’s collective claim that Uber drivers should be classified as employees. Applying the Supreme Court’s 2025 clarification, the Court found that the drivers involved in the proceedings demonstrated substantial entrepreneurship. However, the judgment did not establish that every Uber driver is self-employed: individual drivers with different circumstances may still qualify as employees.
Uber B.V. v FNV – Supreme Court Preliminary Ruling, 21.02.2025 ECLI: ECLI:NL:HR:2025:319
The Supreme Court clarified how entrepreneurship must be considered when applying the Deliveroo worker-classification framework. The Court held that no hierarchy exists between the relevant circumstances. Entrepreneurship may include activities outside the relationship with the client and may result in people performing the same work for the same organisation receiving different legal classifications.
FNV v Uber B.V. – Amsterdam District Court, 13.09.2021 ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2021:5029
The Amsterdam District Court held that Uber drivers who personally transported passengers through the Uber app worked under employment contracts with Uber. The Court found that Uber exercised modern employer authority through its algorithm, fare-setting, access rules, ratings and account-deactivation system. The Taxi Transport Collective Labour Agreement therefore applied.
Article 7:610 Dutch Civil Code – Employment Contract
Article 7:610 of the Dutch Civil Code defines an employment contract. It forms the legal basis for determining whether a person described as a freelancer is legally an employee. The assessment focuses on how the relationship operates in practice, not only on the wording or title of the agreement.