Last Friday was a great day for everyone at Tripolis park. Our colleagues on the 7^th floor had reasons to celebrate, and so did our neighbours Uber, following the Dutch Supreme Court's long-awaited ruling about Uber riders.

The Supreme Court confirmed (in preliminary proceedings) that whether a worker operates as an entrepreneur in the broader economic context (also referred to as "external entrepreneurship") is not of lesser or secondary importance in determining whether an employment agreement exists. Even if other factors suggest the worker is an employee, entrepreneurship alone can be decisive in ruling that no employment agreement is in place.

In its earlier Deliveroo ruling – where EEB assisted trade union FNV – the Supreme Court did not establish a hierarchy among the various factors relevant to determining the existence of an employment agreement. In its Uber ruling, it saw no reason to introduce such hierarchy now. One of the reasons for this was that the issue of what qualifies as employment has caught the attention of the Dutch legislature, which is preparing a bill clarifying how employment relationships should be assessed and introducing a legal presumption of employment (VBAR).

This means that two workers performing the same work for the same contracting party could have a different legal status – one an employment agreement and the other an agreement for services – depending on their "entrepreneurial" position. The Supreme Court clarified that "entrepreneurship" in this context extends beyond the specific worker-contracting party relationship (also referred to as "internal entrepreneurship") and includes broader economic activities.

The ruling deviates from the earlier opinion of Advocate General De Bock, who argued that courts should only look at entrepreneurship outside a worker-employer relationship if the internal indicators for and against the existence of an employment agreement are balanced. The AG's approach was in line with the proposed VBAR legislation, which applies a similar assessment model. However, the Supreme Court ruled differently: external entrepreneurship is "fully" relevant, strengthening the position of workers who claim to be self-employed (zzp-ers).

Stefan Sagel, Irina Timp, Nikki Volmer and Tessa van der Stel successfully litigated the Uber case before the Supreme Court on behalf of Uber.

The ruling and press release (in Dutch) can be accessed via: ECLI:NL:HR:2025:319, Hoge Raad, 24/00877 and https://www.hogeraad.nl/actueel/nieuwsoverzicht/2025/februari/hoge-raad-beoordeling-sprake-arbeidsovereenkomst-geldt-rangorde-tussen/. This case has already attracted a lot of media attention, including on NOS: Hoge Raad: Uber-taxichauffeur kan zowel zzp'er als werknemer zijn, NU.nl: Hoge Raad ziet Uber-chauffeurs die ook ondernemen als legitieme zzp'ers | Economie | NU.nl.