Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 27 March 2026, ECLI:NL:HR:2026:500.
Facts
X operates a sole proprietorship, established in 2022, providing advisory services in the field of energy saving. In 2023, X, through this sole proprietorship, concluded an agreement with Y B.V., entitled “Cooperation Agreement for Outsourcing of Work”.
From 29 July 2023 until 11 January 2024, X carried out work for Y consisting of security duties. X invoiced this work to Y monthly, including VAT, based on an agreed hourly rate.
On 10 January 2024, Y informed X that it was terminating the agreement as of 29 January 2024. A day later, on 11 January 2024, Y stated that the agreement was being terminated with immediate effect.
X took the position that an employment contract existed. Y disputed this and argued that it was merely a contract for services. While the subdistrict court agreed with Y, the Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion and classified the legal relationship as an employment contract.
The Court of Appeal considered it relevant, among other things, that X was not a (qualified) security guard and had no prior experience in that role. X did not carry out his work independently but effectively functioned as part of Y’s organisation. He received instructions from Y, wore a uniform (without the letter “V” indicating a licensed security guard), and used Y’s communication equipment, such as a two-way radio. His sole proprietorship had also not been established for the purpose of carrying out security work. According to the Court of Appeal, these circumstances indicated a relationship of authority and, therefore, an employment contract.
X’s claim for payment of CLA allowances was, however, rejected, because his work did not qualify as “security work” within the meaning of the CLA. Moreover, X received a higher hourly rate than the CLA prescribed.
In the appeal to the Supreme Court, X’s complaints were mainly directed against the fact that CLA allowances and holiday days had not been (fully) awarded.
Ruling
The Supreme Court rejected the complaints applying Section 81(1) of the Judiciary (Organisation) Act, without further reasoning. The Court of Appeal’s decision therefore stands.
Regarding the CLA allowances, the Advocate General found the Court of Appeal’s reasoning not incomprehensible. The same applied to the rejection of the claim relating to holiday days, since this largely depended on the CLA-related claims.
The statutory increase for late payment of wages (Section 7:625 of the Dutch Civil Code) was also considered. The Court of Appeal had reduced this increase to nil. According to the Advocate General, this was permissible, partly because the parties had initially carried out the agreement as a contract for services, meaning Y could not simply be blamed for wages not having been paid on time. The court has broad discretion in this regard and need not extensively justify a reduction.
There was no impermissible surprise decision, since Y had explicitly requested a reduction and X could have taken this into account.
What does this mean for employers?
This ruling underlines that the actual, practical execution of a working relationship is decisive for how it is classified. Even where parties formally conclude a contract for services and work through a sole proprietorship, an employment contract may still exist if elements such as authority, integration into the organisation, and lack of independence are present.
It also shows that reclassification does not automatically lead to the full application of all employment conditions, such as CLA allowances. This depends on the nature of the work and whether it falls within the scope of a CLA.
Finally, the ruling shows that courts can significantly reduce the statutory increase for late payment of wages, particularly where the parties themselves initially assumed a different legal relationship.
Do you have questions about the classification of working relationships or engaging self-employed professionals? Please feel free to contact one of our employment lawyers.
Click here for the full ruling (in Dutch).
