How did the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal classify an Uber driver?

The case concerned a professional driver who had provided passenger-transport services through the UberX application in Brussels since 2019.

The contractual structure involved:

• a service agreement with Uber B.V.;

• a framework agreement for the rental of a vehicle with a driver;

• the Belgian Platform Rider Association;

• individual transport services generated when the driver accepted a ride; and

• access to the UberX application, without which the driver could not perform the services.

In July 2020, the driver applied to the Administrative Commission for the Regulation of the Employment Relationship for a determination of his employment status.

The Commission decided on 26 October 2020 that the working arrangements were incompatible with self-employment. It considered Uber and the Belgian Platform Rider Association to be the driver’s employers because of their connected contractual roles and the practical organisation of the work.

Uber and the Association challenged that decision. On 21 December 2022, the French-speaking Brussels Labour Tribunal annulled the Commission’s decision and held that the relationship was independent.

The driver and the National Social Security Office appealed. On 13 June 2025, the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal:

• reversed the first-instance judgment;

• upheld the substance of the Commission’s assessment;

• classified the relationship as employment;

• identified Uber and the Belgian Platform Rider Association as parties to that employment relationship; and

• recognised the driver’s corresponding affiliation with the employee social-security system.

Uber argued that it provided a digital intermediation service connecting independent drivers with passengers.

The Court rejected a purely intermediary characterisation. It found that Uber organised a complete passenger-transport service in which transport was the central element.

The sector-specific criteria for transporting persons for third parties therefore applied. Under this framework, the satisfaction of more than half of nine statutory criteria creates a rebuttable presumption concerning the nature of the working relationship.

The Court found that eight of the nine criteria indicated employment:

• the driver did not bear financial or economic risk within Uber’s business;

• he did not make a substantial investment in Uber’s capital or share in its profits and losses;

• he had no responsibility or decision-making power concerning Uber’s financial resources;

• he had no authority over Uber’s purchasing policy;

• he could not determine or negotiate the fare charged to passengers;

• he was subject to an obligation to perform accepted services rather than an independently negotiated commercial result;

• he did not personally and freely engage staff;

• he worked principally for the platform; and

• the performance of the service depended on Uber’s digital infrastructure.

The fact that the driver used his own vehicle did not prevent the criterion concerning essential working resources from supporting employment. The application and Uber’s technological infrastructure were indispensable to obtaining and performing rides.

The only criterion pointing towards self-employment concerned the absence of a guaranteed volume of work or minimum remuneration. The driver was paid per completed ride.

Because the majority of the sector-specific criteria indicated employment, the relationship was presumed to be an employment relationship.

The sectoral presumption could still be rebutted by applying Belgium’s four general classification criteria:

• the parties’ expressed intention;

• freedom to organise working time;

• freedom to organise the work; and

• the possibility of exercising hierarchical control.

The Court accepted that the driver could decide when to connect to the application. However, it distinguished freedom to start offering work from freedom during the period in which the work was performed.

Once connected:

• ride requests were allocated through the application;

• the driver could not determine when work would be offered;

• he could not influence the waiting period between rides;

• he did not know the passenger’s destination before accepting a ride;

• he had only a short period in which to accept or reject a request;

• his acceptance rate was monitored;

• rejecting or failing to answer three consecutive requests could result in temporary disconnection; and

• he could not use entrepreneurial decisions to influence the allocation of rides.

The Court also found limitations on the driver’s freedom to organise the work:

• Uber unilaterally determined the fare through its pricing system;

• the theoretical contractual possibility of charging a lower fare was not considered commercially meaningful;

• payment was processed through the application;

• the driver did not determine the scope of the transport service;

• although the driver could technically select a route, Uber’s suggested shortest route affected the calculated fare; and

• continued access to the platform was governed by rules established unilaterally by Uber.

The possibility of hierarchical control was demonstrated by:

• continuous geolocation;

• monitoring of the driver’s activities;

• passenger ratings;

• control over access to the application;

• monitoring of acceptance behaviour; and

• Uber’s ability to disconnect or sanction the driver.

The Court concluded that Uber and the Belgian Platform Rider Association had not rebutted the employment presumption.

The judgment demonstrates that Belgium’s employment-classification rules can apply across a connected platform structure involving multiple agreements and legal entities.

A platform cannot necessarily avoid employer status by dividing responsibilities between:

• the company operating the application;

• an association or intermediary;

• the individual providing the service; and

• automatically generated agreements for individual Assignments.

The Court focused on which entities could exercise authority in practice. Uber organised the service and controlled the essential digital infrastructure, while the Belgian Platform Rider Association formed part of the contractual framework through which the rides were performed.

The decision also demonstrates that algorithmic systems can provide evidence of employer-style control. Relevant features included:

• automated allocation of rides;

• limited information before acceptance;

• monitoring of acceptance rates;

• automatic temporary disconnection;

• unilateral pricing;

• geolocation;

• passenger ratings; and

• platform-controlled access to work.

The judgment concerned one driver and the specific contractual and operational arrangements examined in the proceedings. It does not automatically classify every Uber driver or every platform worker in Belgium as an employee.

However, similar arrangements may create significant reclassification risk where the platform:

• sets prices;

• controls access to customers;

• assigns work through an application;

• monitors performance;

• limits the effective ability to reject work;

• controls access to future Assignments; or

• divides employer functions between connected entities.

Where employment is established, the individual may become entitled to employee social-security coverage and the labour protections applicable under Belgian law.