Amsterdam Court of Appeal in the Uber case: no general ruling, assessment per driver

Joost van Ladesteijn

Jan 28

2 min read

On 27 January 2026, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal dismissed FNV's claims against Uber (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:163). Our founding partner Joost van Ladesteijn commented on the ruling in Het Financieele Dagblad, NRC and ZiPconomy and on BNR Nieuwsradio's evening programme.

What did the court decide?

Unlike the district court, the court of appeal could not establish that the drivers working for Uber do so under an employment contract. For the six drivers who joined the proceedings on Uber's side, the court held that there is no employment contract, given a strong degree of entrepreneurship. The court weighed, among other things, their investments, the freedom to choose working hours, their strategy in accepting rides and the risk of liability and incapacity for work. The court did not rule out that individual drivers do have an employment contract, but without data on individual circumstances it could not identify any (groups of) drivers. The court had earlier referred preliminary questions, which the Supreme Court answered on 21 February 2025 (ECLI:NL:HR:2025:319).

Joost's view

According to Joost, the ruling confirms that the classification of the agreement must always be assessed case by case. 'It always was.' In practice, the interpretation phase gets too little attention, while that is exactly where much can be gained. Excluding entire professions in advance does not fit the weighing of all circumstances.

Practical tips

Record per assignment what the parties agreed and how it is carried out in practice.
Pay attention to the interpretation of the agreement before the classification question arises.
Do not assume one outcome for an entire group of workers: individual circumstances are decisive.

Source: ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:163. See also the article on ZiPconomy (in Dutch). More in our knowledge base on bogus self-employment. Questions? Contact us.

This blog provides general information and is not legal advice. For advice on a specific situation, please contact us.