Pension funds and bogus self-employment
Industrial pension funds (Bpf) are playing an increasingly active role in the context of bogus self-employment (misclassification of freelancers). Because the adage 'no premium, but entitlement' applies in the Netherlands, a freelancer who later turns out to be an employee builds up pension rights retroactively. Pension funds therefore initiate legal proceedings to claim missed premiums (often up to 5 years retroactively) from clients.
The fact that the pension fund was not yet acquainted with the worker during the period of false self-employment is not relevant for the accrual of pension entitlements. This may be different in the event of malicious intent on the part of the employer and employee, whereby they deliberately and persistently mischaracterize the employment relationship.
No Premium, but Entitlement
The adage of 'no premium, but entitlement' is not literally stated in the legal text of the Pension Act, but arises from parliamentary history and the nature of mandatory industry-wide pension funds.
When drawing up the Pension Act (and earlier the Pension and Savings Funds Act), the legislator explicitly intended that this adage applies to mandatory pension funds. The principle protects the participant. If an employer fails to pay the premium to a mandatory pension fund, the fund may not retroactively cancel the employee's accrued pension entitlements. This principle does not generally apply to insurers, provided this is correctly laid down in the pension regulations.
What are the leading lawsuits from Pension Funds?
The most important legal cases in which pension funds claim income due to misclassification are:
Deliveroo versus Bpf Vervoer
After the Supreme Court decided that Deliveroo delivery drivers were in fact employees, the Industry Pension Fund for Professional Road Transport (Bpf Vervoer) started proceedings to claim premiums. At the end of 2023, the Supreme Court ruled definitively that meal delivery by bicycle falls under 'transport of goods by road' and Deliveroo was obliged to pay pension contributions retroactively from 2015. Deliveroo had to pay hundreds of thousands of euros in overdue premiums. It is estimated that Deliveroo will have to pay approximately €3.5 million to €5 million in overdue pension premiums and corrections for the years 2015-2022. StvdIA
Trade union FNV and the Foundation for Enforcement of the Collective Labor Agreement for Private Bus Transport / Taxi Transport have summoned Uber. They argue that Uber drivers are not self-employed, but employees, and that Uber must pay millions in overdue pension premiums to Bpf Vervoer. The court previously ruled that the drivers are employees. Uber is contesting this on appeal, but the risk of claims for overdue pension premiums remains a major financial item. The potential claim against Uber is estimated at tens of millions of euros in missed premiums because it concerns thousands of drivers over several years. The painting and construction sector versus Bpf Schilders & Bpf Bouw
Pension funds such as Bpf Schilders and Bpf Bouw apply a strict 'scope of application'. When these pension funds discover through checks that a painter or construction worker has been employed as a freelancer, but is actually managed and does exactly the same work as employed people, they claim premiums from the construction or painting company. Case law repeatedly confirms that the factual situation is decisive. As soon as misclassification is established, these funds issue writs to claim the income retroactively.
For each misclassified freelancer in the construction or painting sector, the claim for 5 years of additional tax can amount to €30,000 to €50,000 per employee.
Cleaning and Security Industry versus BPF Cleaning / Pension Fund Private Security
Various inspections are currently underway in these two sectors involving additional assessments of hundreds of thousands of euros are imposed on medium-sized facility companies that have deployed freelancers through mediation agencies for regular cleaning or security work.
What is the trend (2025-2026)?
Since the Tax Authorities fully resumed enforcement of the DBA Act on January 1, 2025, there has been a is gaining momentum in lawsuits between pension funds and employers. This is because ex-freelancers are increasingly going to court themselves (but also often supported by trade unions) to demand requalification. As soon as the judge agrees with this misclassification, pension funds will immediately report to the employer to collect the premiums.
What is the control policy of pension funds regarding bogus self-employment?
Industrial pension funds are pursuing an increasingly stringent audit policy to detect misclassification and false self-employment. Since the Tax Authorities resumed enforcement of the DBA Act, pension funds have been working closely with other enforcement agencies.
The control and enforcement policy differs per sector and can be divided into a number of specific methods:
Periodic Scope Investigations: Funds screen Chamber of Commerce registrations and annual accounts of companies within their sector. If a company reports many 'third party costs' or 'hiring self-employed persons' on tasks that are part of its core activity, an administrative check will automatically follow.
Data exchange (Suwinet): Funds have legal access to wage declaration chains and data from the UWV and the Tax Authorities. As soon as the Tax Authorities discover false self-employment at a company, the pension fund is often notified and a wage bill audit over the past 5 years follows.
Notifications and Signals: Many investigations start after signals from trade unions (such as FNV or CNV) or after individual claims from ex-freelancers who still have pension rights. claim.
The Injunction: Pension funds have a unique legal status. They do not have to go straight to court to collect premiums; they can issue a “writ of execution” themselves that has an immediate enforceable title (just like the Tax Authorities).
Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax, or employment advice. Labor and classification regulations (such as the Dutch Wet DBA and EU directives) are highly complex, fact-specific, and subject to frequent changes and changing administrative policies. Reading this content does not create an attorney-client or advisory relationship with Zooly. Before making any decisions regarding contractor engagement, compliance frameworks, or classification policies, you should always consult a qualified local employment lawyer or tax professional. Zooly accepts no liability for any actions taken or decisions made based on the information provided on our website.
Editorial Note & AI Disclosure
In compliance with Article 50 of the EU AI Act, we disclose that artificial intelligence (AI) tools were utilized to assist in compiling, legal screening, and drafting this content. However, to ensure absolute legal precision and contextual accuracy regarding compliance topics, the final text has undergone full human editorial review and rigorous manual verification by the Zooly compliance team before publication.
Source: Pensioenwet
More News
View all news →An intermediary deducted 3.5% from a freelancer’s pay for arranging an assignment. The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal held that the fee breached Dutch law. The case shows why intermediaries and marketplace operators need to look at what the fee buys and how the assignment works in practice.
Preparing for 2027 starts with understanding how your freelance arrangements work today. This guide helps clients identify what to check, which questions need a closer look and what to resolve before approving or renewing an assignment. The budget is approved, the freelancer is available and last year’s agreement is ready to reuse. Before signing, ask one more question: does the proposed arrangement still make sense as freelance work? Start by comparing the agreement with how the work will actually be done. Have the duties changed? Who will direct the work? If an intermediary is involved, what will it be responsible for? The checks below help you spot what needs a closer look before you sign.
An FMS operator combines mediation between clients and freelancers with the administration of assignments through a Freelance Management System. In this model, the client and freelancer contract directly for the work. The operator supports their engagement without becoming the contractor responsible for delivering the assignment. A client needs an independent engineer. A business introduces a suitable professional, helps collect the documents and supports the agreement and invoicing. The engineer delivers the services directly to the client. The business remains involved throughout the assignment, but it has not employed the engineer or undertaken to deliver the engineering work itself. How should that role be described? FMS operator provides a useful name. In this article, it means a business that uses a Freelance Management System to connect clients and freelancers and administer their direct engagements. It builds on the mediation role—bemiddeling in Dutch—which Zooly has also described as the broker role. The term describes a business model. It is not a new statutory status.
“Close the gap before the climb.” Imagine hearing that in your earpiece with a teammate on your wheel. The team director has spotted a move up the road, and you have seconds to respond. The instruction tells you what the team needs in that moment. To understand the rider’s working relationship, it helps to look at what happens after the finish. The men’s WorldTour rules allow teams to engage self-employed riders where the applicable law permits it, and they set conditions for pay and insurance. So who sets the rider’s training schedule between races? Can the rider negotiate an extra commitment? Who bears the cost if an injury keeps them off the bike? Together, those details help show how much independence the rider has in practice and who carries the financial risk. UCI Road Regulations, Article 2.15.115 bis