Another setback for platforms - After Deliveroo, the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal rules that an Uber driver must (also) be considered an employee

In a judgment dated 13 June 2025, the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal ruled that an Uber driver must be considered an employee. After a thorough examination of the actual working conditions, the Court found that these conditions were incompatible with the self-employed status imposed by Uber. Just over a year ago, the same Court reached a similar conclusion in a judgment concerning DELIVEROO couriers.

The collaborative economy is fundamentally reshaping the nature of employment relationships.

Where the initial question was whether a platform could be a party to an employment relationship (or merely a “neutral” intermediary), there is now an ever-growing body of case law around the world addressing the legal nature of the relationship between digital platforms and platform workers:
Are these independent relationships, based on autonomy (and avoiding the obligations of social security contributions for employees), or are they, on the contrary, employment relationships based on subordination (and thus subject to employee social security schemes)?

In Belgium, such decisions are sometimes issued by the Administrative Commission for the Regulation of the Employment Relationship (CRT), a body that a party (usually the worker/self-employed person) can refer to in order to determine whether the contractual classification with the platform is correct. Other decisions are handed down by the labour courts, which intervene at the litigation stage.

The underlying principle is the same as for a “traditional” employment relationship: the parties are free to determine whether the relationship is one of employment or self-employment. However, the actual working arrangements must be consistent with the chosen classification. If the way the relationship is carried out reveals enough elements that contradict the classification agreed upon by the parties, the relationship may be reclassified.

In Belgium, the CRT has already been called upon to assess the classification of a working relationship in the context of the platform economy. In cases involving Deliveroo and Uber, the CRT has held that such collaboration does not necessarily correspond to an independent relationship, but rather to an employment relationship.

Most recently, on 21 December 2023, the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal ruled that the relationship between Deliveroo and its couriers should be reclassified as an employment relationship, and ordered Deliveroo to regularise their situation under both labour and social security law.

On 13 June 2025, the same Labour Court delivered a similar ruling concerning Uber.

Background

An Uber driver operating in the Brussels Region (holder of the “LVC” licence required under local regulations) has been active on the platform since 2019. Under Uber's operating model, the driver enters into a “Car Rental with Driver Agreement” with a company governed by Dutch law.

In order to perform services, the driver must access the Uber app. To gain access, they are required to accept (by clicking an online “Yes, I accept” button) an independent contractor services agreement. Each transportation service requested through the app is accepted by the driver and falls within the scope of this contractual framework.

In July 2020, the driver submitted a request to the CRT to determine the legal classification of the relationship. The CRT concluded that (both in light of the sector-specific presumption – which is discussed below – and the general classification criteria) the conditions under which the work was performed were incompatible with the classification of a self-employed relationship. Relying on this decision, the driver asked Uber to execute what was now, in his view, an employment contract, specifically by providing work and access to the application, as well as applying the relevant social security regulations.

Uber brought proceedings before the French-speaking Labour Tribunal of Brussels, seeking to overturn the CRT’s decision and to obtain a ruling that the contractual relationship was indeed compatible with classification as self-employment.

In a judgment dated 21 December 2022, the Labour Tribunal ruled in favour of the platform: it held that there was no need to reclassify the nature of the relationship, which it deemed to be of an independent nature. The claim filed by the NSSO (National Social Security Office), which had joined the proceedings, was dismissed as unfounded.

The driver and the NSSO lodged an appeal against this decision.

The Decision of the Brussels Labour Court

The Labour Court reiterates that the parties are free to determine the nature of their employment relationship, provided that the actual performance of the contract is not inconsistent with the agreed classification.
The law provides for four general criteria to assess the existence – or absence – of a relationship of subordination. These are:

• The will of the parties, as expressed in their agreement (provided that the agreement is performed in accordance with its terms);
• The freedom to organise working time;
• The freedom to organise the work itself;
• The possibility of exercising hierarchical control.

However, for the transport sector concerning the carriage of goods and/or persons for the account of third parties, the law establishes a binary presumption regarding the nature of the employment relationship. This presumption depends on whether more than half of a set of nine specific criteria are met. If they are, the relationship is presumed to be one of employment. If not, it is presumed to be self-employment. This presumption is rebuttable, meaning it may be overturned based on the assessment of the general criteria listed above.

In this case, the Labour Court found that a majority of the specific criteria were met, giving rise to a presumption of an employment relationship:

1. The driver bears no financial or economic risk within Uber. He makes no personal or substantial investment in the company’s capital and does not share in the platform’s profits or losses;
2. The driver has no responsibility for or decision-making power over the platform’s financial resources.
3. The driver has no authority over Uber’s purchasing policy;
4. The driver has no say over Uber’s pricing policy. In fact, he has no power to set or negotiate the fare charged to the user (it is determined unilaterally by Uber, based on a pricing method established and modifiable at any time by Uber) Although the contract provides that the driver may charge a fare lower than the user fare set by Uber, the Court considers this possibility to be purely theoretical;
5. The driver is not subject to a performance obligation. He is merely required to be available when connected to the app and to carry out the rides he accepts an obligation of means, according to the Labour Court;
6. The driver has no guarantee of payment or of a minimum volume of work. He is paid per ride (which is the only element pointing toward a self-employed relationship);
7. The driver does not personally and freely hire any staff;
8. The driver works mainly for a single contracting party, namely the platform;
9. Lastly, the driver performs his work using resources provided by Uber. Although he uses his own vehicle, he also and above all relies on Uber’s IT infrastructure (specifically the application, which is essential to perform the work). 

According to the Labour Court, the general classification criteria do not rebut the presumption of an employment relationship arising from the specific criteria set out above.

The question of the driver’s freedom to organise his work and working time is examined in detail:
should one consider that drivers are free to connect and disconnect from the platform at will, with no obligation to accept a ride when they are offline? Or should the analysis focus exclusively on the extent to which that freedom exists once the driver has chosen to connect and accepted a ride, regardless of the freedom to connect in the first place?

The Labour Court has adopted the second approach, in line with well-established case law from the Court of Cassation: the legal analysis must focus on the period during which the work is actually performed (in this case, as soon as there was a login).

As for the organisation of working time, the Court highlights several points:

• Once the driver is connected to the application, it is the application that assigns ride requests to the driver;
• The driver is not informed of the user’s destination until after accepting the ride;
• The driver does not genuinely have the freedom to accept or refuse a ride, as the acceptance rate is monitored and may have consequences. Indeed, failing to accept three consecutive ride proposals (either by actively refusing or by not responding within 15 seconds) results in temporary disconnection from the app.

Based on these findings, the Labour Court concludes that the restrictions imposed are incompatible with the freedom to organise one’s working time, which is a defining feature of a self-employed relationship.

Regarding the freedom to organise the work itself, the Court reaches the same conclusion.
The driver does not determine the scope of the task to be performed. While he may choose the route or navigation system, this is irrelevant in practice since the “shortest route” suggested by the app is used to determine the fare.

Finally, the Court considers that the conditions under which the driver obtains and maintains access to the platform are unilaterally defined and controlled by the platform, which gives it the power to exercise hierarchical control, an essential element of subordination. The existence of a geolocation system and a passenger rating feature within the application further supports this finding.

The Labour Court therefore overturns the first-instance decision and holds that the driver is an employee of the platform.

As a result, the driver must be affiliated to the social security system applicable to employees and is entitled to the full set of labour and social protections granted to employees under Belgian law.

Key message

When determining the nature of a working relationship, for example when working with self-employed persons, it is essential to ensure that the actual performance of the collaboration does not indicate the existence of a relationship of subordination. To this end, make sure to implement and maintain best practices, for example with respect to: instructions, working hours/schedules, absences, evaluations, organisational charts, etc. If in practice it turns out that the collaboration involves elements of subordination, the relationship may be reclassified.