New developments regarding bogus self-employment: practical considerations and rates are becoming increasingly important

A recent ruling by the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal once again demonstrates that employers must exercise caution when engaging self-employed individuals, interim professionals, and contractors through their own private limited company (B.V.).

In this case, a certified public accountant worked for an accounting firm through his own company. The parties had deliberately opted for a contract for services. Invoices included VAT, and the agreement explicitly stated that no employment contract was intended. It also stipulated that the worker could not later claim that an employment contract existed.

Nevertheless, the court ruled that an employment contract did exist.

In reaching this conclusion, the court did not focus on what the parties called the agreement, but rather on the agreed-upon rights and obligations and their actual implementation, considered in their mutual context. The accountant performed core tasks for the organization, worked full-time, was required to perform the work in person, had limited flexibility to work for other clients, and received a fixed monthly compensation. In addition, agreements had been made regarding, among other things, vacation days and the location where the work was performed.

These circumstances carried significant weight. According to the court of appeals, the fact that the parties themselves did not wish to enter into an employment contract was not a decisive factor. After all, the classification of an employment relationship is determined on the basis of the agreed-upon rights and obligations and the manner in which they are carried out.

It is noteworthy that the court also took into account that the worker himself had deliberately arranged for the arrangement through his private limited company and had derived a tax benefit from it. The court described his subsequent invocation of employee protection as unsympathetic and opportunistic. Nevertheless, this did not preclude the conclusion that an employment contract existed.

Because the working relationship was classified as an employment contract, the employer should not have terminated the agreement without the employee’s consent or authorization from the UWV. The employer was therefore ordered to pay compensation for wrongful termination, a transition payment, and equitable compensation.

However, the court of appeals did qualify the financial consequences. The agreed-upon assignment fee was not automatically equated with wages. According to the court, the fee also included elements related to the chosen assignment structure, such as flexibility and the absence of regular protection against dismissal. The court therefore established a lower gross monthly wage for the calculation of the compensation.

This ruling is part of a broader trend. Not only the courts but also the legislature are continuing to push for a reassessment of self-employed contractor relationships.

On June 16, 2026, the Senate approved the Act on the Introduction of a Legal Presumption of an Employment Contract Based on an Hourly Rate. The introduction of this legal presumption makes it easier for self-employed individuals who earn less than 38 euros per hour (as of January 1, 2026) to claim that they have an employment contract. 

If a self-employed person working below this threshold invokes this legal presumption, the burden of proof shifts. It is then up to the client to demonstrate that no employment contract exists. If the client fails to do so, the self-employed person can claim employee protections, such as continued wage payments and protection against dismissal.

It is important to note that no transitional provisions have been announced. The legal presumption will therefore also apply to existing agreements as of the law’s effective date. Organizations that work with lower-paid self-employed individuals would therefore be wise not to wait until the law formally takes effect.

The message is clear: a good contract remains important, but it is not enough. Look at the practical reality: what work is being performed, how independent is the contractor really, how regular is the work, how is payment made, and what instructions or organizational integration are in place?

The new legal presumption introduces an additional risk for low-wage self-employed individuals. Not only will the content of the agreement and its actual performance matter, but the hourly rate may also serve as the starting point for a discussion regarding employee status.

Do you have any questions? Please contact Dennis Oud, Tessa Sipkema, Noa Bilogrevic, or Elke Hofman-Bijvank. 

You can read the ruling here.