Uber B.V. v FNV – Supreme Court Preliminary Ruling, 21.02.2025 ECLI: ECLI:NL:HR:2025:319
Published on:
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.
1. Background and Preliminary Questions
The Amsterdam District Court classified Uber drivers as employees in 2021. During the appeal, questions arose about how the Deliveroo factors factors should be applied, particularly the role of entrepreneurship.
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal referred preliminary questions to the Supreme Court.
Explanation
The Supreme Court was asked whether entrepreneurship carries less weight than other classification factors and whether drivers doing the same work can have different legal statuses.
2. Entrepreneurship and Equal Weight
The Supreme Court held that there is no fixed hierarchy between the circumstances identified in Deliveroo. Entrepreneurship is not automatically less important than organisational integration, authority or other factors.
Relevant entrepreneurship may include circumstances outside the relationship with Uber, such as working for other clients, making business investments, acquiring customers and presenting oneself commercially as an entrepreneur.
Explanation
A worker’s independent business activities must be considered fully. Courts cannot automatically treat organisational integration as more important than entrepreneurship.
3. Different Statuses for the Same Work
The Supreme Court confirmed that people performing the same work for the same organisation may receive different legal classifications if their entrepreneurial circumstances differ.
The case then returned to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal for a final assessment.
Explanation
Uber drivers do not necessarily all have the same legal status. One driver may genuinely operate as an entrepreneur, while another may qualify as an employee.
Timeline
13 September 2021
Supreme Court
Amsterdam Court of Appeal
Sources
- https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2025:319
- https://www.hogeraad.nl/actueel/nieuwsoverzicht/2025/februari/hoge-raad-beoordeling-sprake-arbeidsovereenkomst-geldt-rangorde-tussen/
- https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2021:5029
- https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:163
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.
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.
FNV v Deliveroo Netherlands B.V. – Amsterdam District Court, 15.01.2019, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2019:198
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.
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.