Parliamentary letter on personal budgets and self-employment: precise terminology matters
On 27 October 2026, the Dutch Minister for Work and Participation sent a letter to Parliament on holders of a personal care budget (pgb) who engage a self-employed professional. The gist: this is possible, provided it is properly structured. According to the letter itself, lifting the enforcement moratorium did not change the law. The terminology used, however, deserves three comments.
1. A contract, not “hiring” versus employment
The letter contrasts engaging a self-employed person with an employment contract. The legal question, however, is whether the contract qualifies as an employment contract within the meaning of Article 7:610 of the Dutch Civil Code.
2. Qualifying the contract
The letter refers to the “qualification of the working relationship”, but what matters is the interpretation and qualification of the contract. According to the Supreme Court (Deliveroo, 24 March 2023), the parties’ rights and obligations must be established by interpretation under the Haviltex standard. If they meet the statutory definition, the contract is an employment contract.
3. Embeddedness remains relevant
The letter states that, for a budget holder, the features of working within the organisation (embeddedness) are less relevant. The Supreme Court, however, expressly lists the embeddedness of the work and of the worker in the organisation and business operations as a potentially relevant circumstance. Whether it carries weight in a specific case depends on all the circumstances.
Why this matters
Precisely in an area with so much uncertainty, precise terminology is important. Loose terms from policy documents are quickly used as legal standards in practice, while the statute and the case law of the Supreme Court are decisive.
This blog provides general information and is not legal advice. For advice on a specific situation, please contact us.
