Why a long-term assignment did not amount to employment under Dutch law

There were several operational characteristics that resembled traditional employment. The legal counsel was issued a CDG corporate email address and laptop, held direct access to internal IT systems, and regularly attended management meetings. Additionally, some of her internal appointments were scheduled directly by CDG's staff. 

However, applying the holistic assessment mandated by the Supreme Court’s Deliveroo framework, the District Court prioritised the broader commercial and professional reality: 

• Substantive Autonomy: The lawyer executed her tasks independently based on her own professional judgement. She was completely free from substantive or hierarchical instructions by CDG management. 

• Organisational Freedom: She retained the autonomy to organise her own working hours, reschedule internal meetings, work remotely, and even perform her services from her home in Spain. 

• Core Business Embedding: Her legal function was not embedded (ingebed) in CDG’s core business activities. CDG's primary operations focused on acquiring and operating dental practices. The specialized GDPR advice she provided was a distinct service that would otherwise have been sourced from an external law firm. 

The court placed significant weight on the lawyer’s wider entrepreneurial profile (ondernemerschap). The facts demonstrated that she was a genuine market participant rather than a dependent worker: 

• She was formally registered as an independent entrepreneur prior to contracting with CDG. 

• She actively maintained two other commercial clients during the assignment. 

• She drafted the service contracts herself and successfully applied her own general business terms and conditions. 

• The original hourly fee of €155 was proposed by the lawyer herself during commercial negotiations, rather than being unilaterally imposed by the client. 

Viewed collectively, these factors demonstrated an absence of employer authority (gezagverhouding). The court ruled that the contracts remained genuine agreements for services (overeenkomst van opdracht).

The Clinias judgment provides a vital legal counterweight for companies worried about misclassification. It proves that close cooperation is not inherently non-compliant. To safeguard similar long-term professional assignments, businesses should adopt the following compliance measures: 

• Protect the contractor’s professional autonomy: Avoid issuing substantive or methodological instructions on how the specialist work must be executed. Rely strictly on the professional’s independent expertise and focus on the final deliverables. 

• Document commercial negotiation history: Keep records proving that contract terms, scopes of work, and hourly or monthly fees were actively negotiated or proposed by the freelancer, rather than dictated by corporate procurement templates. 

• Allow structural operational flexibility: Ensure the freelancer retains the practical right to determine their own working hours, work remotely (including abroad if feasible), and reject or reschedule non-essential internal meetings. 

• Assess core vs. non-core business integration: Evaluate whether the freelance role fills a structural internal job opening or provides specialized, temporary expertise. Sourcing independent contractors for non-core tasks (e.g., specialized legal, IT, or project-based consultancy) carries lower reclassification risks. 

• Verify external indicators of entrepreneurship: Prior to and during the engagement, confirm that the contractor maintains an active Chamber of Commerce (KVK) registration, utilizes their own general terms, and ideally services or actively pursues other clients. 

• Provide corporate tools strictly for data security: If you must issue corporate laptops or email addresses, ensure these tools are provided solely to guarantee data protection (e.g., GDPR compliance) rather than to monitor performance, track hours, or integrate the freelancer into internal staff directories. 

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.

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.