That is what the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled in a case brought by FNV procedure. But the Court also makes it very clear that you cannot lump all (Über) drivers together. FNV had asked the Court to rule that all Über drivers qualify as employees.
Individual assessment
In line with the Deliveroo judgment, Hof Amsterdam ruled that it cannot be ruled for an entire group whether the persons belonging to that group do or do not qualify as employees. In 2025, the Supreme Court ruled, on preliminary questions from Hof Amsterdam, that all 9 criteria from the Deliveroo judgment must be judged together and that criterion 9 has no different weight from the other criteria in this respect. Criterion 9 concerns whether the person performing the work thereby behaves as an entrepreneur. See also our article Entrepreneurship also counts when assessing self-employment.
In the situations now judged by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, the Über drivers have argued that they are “genuine” entrepreneurs. The Court goes along with that contention, considering that the drivers have sufficiently demonstrated that:
- they are at commercial risk;
- the journeys are carried out using a means of transport owned and invested in by the driver;
- drivers face the risk of liability and disability.
You can read with what concrete facts these elements were substantiated by the drivers in the text of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruling.
Now what?
FNV has been fighting for years to classify Über drivers as employees. Of course, FNV has the option of appealing the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruling discussed above. In addition, FNV can initiate proceedings in which, in respect of individual Über drivers, it is argued and substantiated that they are employed.
Do you work with freelancers? Then it is important that it is not about the contract alone, but about what actually happens on a daily basis. Can people really make their own choices? Do they invest themselves? Do they take risks? This ruling shows that this is assessed separately for each individual case and that you cannot make do with general statements without substantiation.