On February 21, 2025, the Supreme Court’s ruling on the preliminary questions in the FNV Uber case drew widespread attention among labor law practitioners. In its ruling, the Supreme Court once again emphasized the importance of the holistic assessment, in line with the Deliveroo ruling and the earlier Groen Schoevers ruling. Nearly a year later, the next legal milestone follows. Now, nearly a year later, on January 27, 2026, the Amsterdam Court of Appeals will issue its ruling on the appeal and dismiss the FNV’s claims to classify all Uber drivers or groups of drivers as employees, a ruling that could have implications for self-employed individuals, clients, and the way in which it is determined whether a relationship constitutes an employment contract or a contract for services.

No employment contract

Contrary to the district court’s 2021 ruling, the court of appeals concluded that it cannot be established that Uber drivers generally work under an employment contract. For the drivers who joined Uber’s side in the appeal, the court of appeals ruled that there is a high degree of entrepreneurship involved. In reaching this conclusion, the court of appeals considered various factors, such as the extent of the investments drivers make themselves, for example, in their cars, the freedom to determine their own work schedules, the strategic choices involved in accepting or declining rides and the associated earnings, and the assumption of risks, such as liability and disability.

At the same time, the court does not rule out the possibility that there are individual drivers who do work for Uber under an employment contract. However, because there is no concrete information about individual circumstances, the court cannot determine which drivers or groups of drivers this might apply to. Consequently, there is insufficient basis to render a general judgment regarding groups of drivers. 

Implications for self-employed individuals

Not entirely surprisingly, the Court of Appeals’ ruling follows the line set by the Supreme Court in the Deliveroo decision. The holistic test emphasizes the importance of balancing nine factors when assessing the employment relationship; none of the factors carries more weight than the others. In this regard, the actual circumstances of the employment relationship take precedence over the terms of employment set out on paper (substance over form); it should also be emphasized that no two employment relationships are alike and that, in fact, no blanket ruling can be made regarding groups of self-employed individuals. This ruling effectively formalizes that fact.  

Above all, this case also shows that the court attaches importance to the degree of external entrepreneurship. This aligns with a broader trend that judges have increasingly followed since the Deliveroo ruling. In 2025, ZiPconomy refers to an analysis by the University of Amsterdam of case law since the Deliveroo ruling, which shows that external entrepreneurship often carries significant weight in the assessment of employment relationships. For self-employed individuals, this means in practical terms that demonstrating entrepreneurship (own equipment, bearing entrepreneurial risk, etc.) is important in the assessment of the employment relationship. 

A person smiling.

How did that go again?

Since 2019, Uber drivers have been voicing an increasing number of complaints about working conditions and the way Uber operates. Drivers turned to the FNV union because, in their view, promises of higher earnings, flexibility, and independence did not match reality: Uber was allegedly controlling fares, operating procedures, and, in effect, working hours—which is difficult to reconcile with self-employment.  

In November 2020, the FNV union demanded that Uber comply with the taxi collective bargaining agreement, arguing that Uber was acting as an employer, while Uber maintained that it was merely a platform that brings together supply and demand. On September 13, 2021, the Amsterdam District Court ruled that Uber must indeed be regarded as an employer and must comply with the taxi collective bargaining agreement, after which Uber filed an appeal.  

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

  1. the concept of “entrepreneurship” in the Deliveroo ruling for the purpose of assessing an employment relationship;
  2. the question of whether Article 3 of the AVV Act provides a sufficient legal basis for the FNV’s claim.

In late September 2024, a recommendation was issued by attorney Ruth de Bock, who argued that “personal entrepreneurship” should be given only limited weight and becomes relevant only if the earlier Deliveroo criteria do not provide a definitive answer, with the emphasis to be placed on the specific working relationship in the workplace and conduct in economic transactions not being allowed to tip the balance decisively. The Supreme Court is not obligated to follow this opinion; in the Deliveroo ruling, the Supreme Court actually deviated from the Advocate General’s conclusion by emphasizing that all circumstances of the case must be taken into account, a decision that was subsequently met with criticism.

The end (or not quite?)

At first glance, this ruling appears to have brought an end to this protracted legal battle. Yet that is not necessarily the case. Labor law attorney Joost van Ladesteijn states in a response on LinkedIn that there are potential grounds for appeal in cassation for both parties. In an initial response, the FNV union expressed disappointment and noted that it had at least expected the court of appeals to classify drivers who work exclusively for Uber as employees. The union remains convinced that Uber drivers are employees and are entitled to protection.