Ruling in the FNV-Uber case: significance for self-employed professionals and clients

On February 21, 2025, the response to the preliminary questions in the FNV Uber case attracted widespread attention among followers of labor law. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the holistic test, in line with the Deliveroo judgment and the earlier Groen Schoevers judgment. Almost a year later, the next legal milestone followed. Now, almost a year later, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on January 27, 2026 ruling in appeal and rejects the FNV's claims to classify all Uber drivers or groups of drivers as employees; a ruling that consequences on self-employed persons, clients, and the way in which it is determined whether there is an employment or contract agreement.

No employment contract

Unlike the court in its ruling in 2021, the court of appeal concludes that it cannot be established that Uber drivers generally work on the basis of an employment contract. For the drivers who joined Uber in the appeal, the court of appeal ruled that there is a high degree of entrepreneurship. In doing so, the court takes various factors into account, such as the size of the investments made by drivers themselves, for example in their cars, the freedom to decide for themselves when they work, the strategic choices in accepting or refusing rides and the associated earnings, and the bearing of risks, such as liability and incapacity for work.

At the same time, the court does not rule out the possibility that there are individual drivers who do work for Uber on the basis of an employment contract. However, as there is no concrete information about individual circumstances, the court cannot determine which drivers or groups of drivers this would apply to. As a result, there is insufficient basis for making a general assessment of groups of drivers.

Importance for freelancers

Not entirely surprisingly, the court's ruling follows the line set out by the Supreme Court in the Deliveroo ruling. The holistic test emphasizes the importance of weighing nine aspects equally when assessing the employment relationship; none of the aspects carries more weight than the others. In addition, the actual circumstances of the employment relationship take precedence over the terms and conditions of employment laid down on paper (substance prevails over appearance); it should also be emphasized that no two employment relationships are the same and that, in fact, no ruling can be made about groups of self-employed persons. This ruling formalizes that fact.

Above all, this case also shows that the court attaches importance to the degree of external entrepreneurship. This is in line with a broader trend that has been followed more frequently by judges since the Deliveroo ruling. ZiPconomy refers to an analysis by the University of Amsterdam of case law since the Deliveroo ruling, which shows that external entrepreneurship often plays a significant role in the assessment of employment relationships.

How did it work again?

Since 2019, Uber drivers have been increasingly complaining about working conditions and the way Uber shapes its practices. Drivers turned to the FNV trade union because they felt that promises of higher earnings, flexibility, and independence did not match reality: Uber would control rates, working methods, and, in fact, working hours, which is difficult to reconcile with self-employment.

In November 2020, the FNV union ordered Uber to comply with the taxi collective labor agreement, arguing that Uber was acting as an employer, while Uber insisted that it was merely a platform that brought together supply and demand. On September 13, 2021, the Amsterdam District Court ruled that Uber should indeed be regarded as an employer and must comply with the taxi collective labor agreement, after which Uber lodged an appeal.

The appeal was heard on June 13, 2023, by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, which decided to refer preliminary questions to the Supreme Court. This was not only in the interest of the FNV-Uber case, but also because of the social need for clarification of the employment relationship test. On October 3, 2023, the court formulated two important questions regarding:

the concept of 'entrepreneurship' in the Deliveroo judgment for the purpose of assessing an employment relationship;
the question of whether Article 3 of the AVV Act provides a sufficient legal basis for bringing the FNV's claim.

At the end of September 2024, the advice of lawyerRuth de Bock, who stated that 'personal entrepreneurship' should only be given limited weight and should only be relevant if the earlier Deliveroo views do not provide a definitive answer, whereby the emphasis should be on the specific working relationship in the workplace and that economic behavior should not tip the balance decisively. The Supreme Court is not obliged to follow this opinion; in the Deliveroo ruling, the Supreme Court deviated from the AG's conclusion by emphasizing that all circumstances of the case must be taken into account, which was also met with criticism.

HThe end (or not not quiteyet?)

OAt firstfacewith thisspeech an eggto beto to this protractedlong rreallawsuit. Still that's notnecessarily the case. Labor lawyer Joost van Ladesteijn states in a response on LinkedIn that there are possible grounds for cassation for both parties. In an initial response, the FNV disappointmentthatandn and in every geval expected the court would drivers who work exclusively for Uber as employees. The union remains convinced that Uber drivers are employees and are entitled to protection.