Deliveroo Netherlands B.V. v FNV – Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 16 February 2021 ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:392
Gepubliceerd op:
Bijgewerkt op:
Geldig vanaf:
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal confirmed that Deliveroo’s meal-delivery riders worked under employment contracts within the meaning of Article 7:610 BW. Although riders could choose when to work, refuse deliveries and arrange substitution, those freedoms did not outweigh Deliveroo’s control over the contractual terms, remuneration and digital organisation of the work.
1. Background and Legal Test
Deliveroo initially employed its riders but began treating them as independent contractors in 2018. FNV challenged this classification.
The District Court found that the riders worked under employment contracts. On appeal, the Court examined whether the relationship satisfied Article 7:610 BW, considering the elements of work, remuneration, authority and work performed for a certain period.
Toelichting
Deliveroo called the riders independent contractors. The Court examined how the relationship actually operated rather than relying on that contractual label.
2. Flexibility and Substitution
Under Deliveroo’s Free Login system, riders could decide when to work and whether to accept individual deliveries. They could also arrange for another person to perform a delivery.
The Court accepted that these circumstances indicated some independence. However, they were not incompatible with an employment contract and did not determine the classification by themselves.
Toelichting
The riders had genuine flexibility, but flexible working does not automatically make someone self-employed.
4. Decision and Legal Significance
The Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment and held that the riders worked under employment contracts.
On 24 March 2023, the Supreme Court rejected Deliveroo’s cassation appeal and left this classification in place.
Toelichting
The riders’ flexibility did not outweigh Deliveroo’s control over the wider working relationship. The riders were therefore classified as employees.
Tijdlijn
Amsterdam District Court judgment
Amsterdam Court of Appeal judgment
Supreme Court judgment
Bronnen
- https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:392&utm=
- https://www.rechtspraak.nl/organisatie-en-contact/organisatie/gerechtshoven/gerechtshof-amsterdam/nieuws/2021/02/deliveroo-bezorgers-hebben-een-arbeidsovereenkomst?utm
- https://semantius.nl/uitspraken/ECLI%3ANL%3AGHAMS%3A2021%3A392?utm
- https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2019:198&utm
- https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2023:443&utm
- https://www.hogeraad.nl/actueel/nieuwsoverzicht/2023/maart/hoge-raad-oordeel-hof-bezorgers-deliveroo-arbeidsovereenkomst-hadden/?
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.