FNV v Uber B.V. – Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 27.01.2026 ECLI: ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:163
Gepubliceerd op:
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.
1. Background and Legal Question
The Amsterdam District Court held in 2021 that Uber drivers worked under employment contracts. Uber appealed.
After receiving the Supreme Court’s preliminary ruling, the Court of Appeal had to reassess the drivers’ status while giving full weight to their individual entrepreneurship.
Toelichting
The Court had to decide whether the available evidence supported classifying Uber drivers collectively as employees.
2. Assessment of Entrepreneurship
The Court examined the drivers’ commercial activities, freedom to determine when and how much they worked, ability to use other platforms, investments, financial risks and presentation as independent businesses.
The drivers involved in the proceedings demonstrated sufficient entrepreneurial independence to weigh against employment classification.
Toelichting
The participating drivers did not merely perform work under Uber’s direction. Their individual business activities and commercial independence also had to be considered.
3. Decision and Legal Significance
The Court of Appeal reversed the District Court’s decision and rejected FNV’s collective claims.
The judgment did not rule that every Uber driver is self-employed. It left open the possibility that individual drivers with different circumstances could qualify as employees.
Toelichting
FNV could not establish that Uber drivers as a group were employees. Individual drivers may nevertheless receive a different classification.
Tijdlijn
Amsterdam District Court
Supreme Court preliminary ruling
Amsterdam Court of Appeal
Bronnen
Gerelateerde kennis
Bekijk alle kennisUber 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.
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.