Article 7:610 Dutch Civil Code – Employment Contract
Gepubliceerd op:
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.
1. Definition of an employment contract
Under Article 7:610 of the Dutch Civil Code, an employment contract exists when one party undertakes to perform work in the service of another party for a certain period in exchange for wages.
The assessment therefore concerns three main elements:
Work;
Wages; and
Working in the service of another party.
Toelichting
A working relationship may be employment when a person performs work, receives payment and works under another party’s authority. Calling that person a freelancer does not automatically make them self-employed.
2. The actual relationship determines the legal status
The parties’ description of their agreement is not decisive. The assessment first establishes the rights and obligations agreed between them and how those obligations are performed in practice. It then determines whether that relationship meets the legal definition of an employment contract.
Toelichting
A contract stating that someone is a freelancer is not enough. If the actual relationship operates like employment, a court may still classify it as an employment contract.
3. Application to freelancers
The Dutch Supreme Court’s Deliveroo judgment confirmed that all relevant circumstances must be assessed together. These include the organisation of the work, personal performance, remuneration, commercial risk and the worker’s entrepreneurial activity.
The 2025 Uber preliminary ruling further confirmed that entrepreneurship outside the specific relationship may also be relevant. Consequently, people performing the same work for the same organisation may receive different classifications if their individual circumstances differ.
Toelichting
There is no single test that automatically makes someone an employee or a freelancer. The complete relationship must be examined. Detailed application of these rules is explained in the separate Deliveroo and Uber Knowledge Items.
Bronnen
Gerelateerde kennis
Bekijk alle kennisFNV 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.
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.