News

What started as a handy app to find a cleaner ended in a legal clean-up for Helpling. The Supreme Court ruled on 11 April 2025 that the cleaners who worked through the platform were not self-employed but temporary workers. And that has implications, including for employers outside the cleaning industry.

Helpling worked as follows: households posted cleaning orders via the platform and cleaners could respond. They largely set their own schedule and rate (within limits set by Helpling), but had to work by the platform's rules, use the payment method Helpling prescribed, and receive reviews from their customers. It all seemed very flexible, but under the bonnet Helpling determined a surprising amount.

The Supreme Court looked through that flexibility and upheld the court's verdict: this is a temporary employment arrangement within the meaning of Section 7:690 of the Civil Code. And remarkably, the fact that the cleaners did not work in a company or organisation, but in people's homes, does not matter. A private household can also be a hirer. What matters is that someone temporarily performs work under the supervision and direction of another person, and that was the case here.

What can employers learn from this? Firstly, that the legal qualification of an employment relationship does not depend on labels or fancy terms, but on how things work in practice. Secondly, that even a platform that claims to be just an intermediary can still turn out to be an employer if it actually shapes and controls the employment relationship.

So for employers who work with freelancers or platforms, this is another wake-up call: make sure the legal and actual reality are aligned. The risks of false self-employment and misqualified employment relationships lurk.

Do you have questions about using freelancers or are you working with a platform model? If so, feel free to contact our employment law specialists.

In a previous blog, I have already discussed in detail the relationship between the principle duty of enforcement and the principle of proportionality. For an explanation of the relationship between these two concepts, I refer you to that blog.

In the judgment of the interim relief judge of the Limburg District Court of 24 April 2025, which is discussed in this blog, this relationship came up again. The subject of this ruling was an order under penalty imposed on the plaintiff in this case for converting two stables without the necessary environmental permit. The order required the plaintiff to return the stables to the licensed situation. The plaintiff lodged an objection and later an appeal against this decision of the college and the decision on the objection, inter alia because it considered that enforcement action was disproportionate in relation to the objectives to be served by it. This is because the stables being converted were legally erected in 1973 and may therefore remain on site. Enforcement action against the construction work on the stables, the use of the stables and/or the solar panels installed on the roofs cannot therefore achieve the goal of reducing petrification in the outlying area. The college, on the other hand, believes that enforcement is mainly concerned with restoring the property to its lawful state and complying with planning regulations, and that in addition, there is also a third-party enforcement request.

The interim relief judge referred to the Harderwijk decision and ruled as follows. Although the judge in preliminary relief proceedings could follow the municipal executive as regards compliance with the planning rules, he did question whether enforcement action was proportionate in this case, especially the question of the purpose of enforcement and its necessity. The preliminary relief judge then ruled that the third-party's interests were not served by returning the stables to their lawful, licensed but also dilapidated state, because the third-party only wanted the stables to be removed in their entirety. Regarding the public interest, the interim relief judge ruled that the enforcement that has just taken place does not serve those public interests. The conclusion, therefore, is that the board did not give sufficient reasons why enforcement action is proportionate in this case.

Do you have any questions about the principle of proportionality and the duty to enforce? If so, please contact Gerard van der Wende or Fleur Huisman.

You can read the ruling here.

On 8 December 2024, the new Product Liability Directive (EU) 2024/2853 came into force. The old Directive had been in force in the European Union since 1985 in case a defective product results in damage. This Directive was a good basis, but with all the (technical) developments in the past 40 years, such as AI, the Directive really needed modernisation. This blog looks at some of the changes and what this could mean for producers and consumers.

Concept of product

As indicated, the old Directive dates back to 1985. At that time, the term “product” was still quite clear; it simply meant a physical, tangible object. However, technology has advanced so much that this assumption is outdated. In the new directive, the term “product” has therefore been considerably broadened and extended to include digital variants. Think, for instance, of software, AI systems and digital services.

For example, a product can function thanks to a digital component - as in the case of a smart thermostat or a robot hoover. The software that makes this functioning possible is also considered a product thanks to the new directive, and its developer is thus considered a producer. Software that functions independently - such as autonomous AI applications - also falls within the scope of the directive.

In short: it has long since ceased to be only traditional manufacturers of tangible goods who are at risk of product liability. Software developers, digital service providers and platform providers can now also fall under this liability.

Concept of damage

Now that the concept of “product” has been broadened, the picture of what constitutes “damage” within the framework of product liability is also changing. Whereas previously only personal injury or material damage was covered, this has been significantly expanded under the new directive. Thus, immaterial damage is now also recognised - provided it has been medically established. Think of demonstrable psychological damage resulting from a defective product.

In addition, damage due to loss of or damage to digital data has also been added as a new category. A concrete example is the erasure of an entire data set due to a defect in software or AI systems. Such digital damage has often been difficult to legally qualify until now, but with this directive, it gets a clear place within the liability regime.

Lower limit

Under the old directive, an important threshold applied: only damage above € 500,00 was eligible for compensation. This meant that consumers with relatively small claims - think broken glasses or damaged laptops - were often left empty-handed. That limit has been completely abolished with the new directive.

This change significantly lowers the threshold for making a claim. Consumers can now claim compensation even for smaller amounts of damage. This makes liability law more accessible and more attuned to the reality in which even limited digital damage can be impactful.

In addition, it is no longer required that the product is exclusively for private use. Even when a product is partially used for business purposes, an injured party can rely on the directive. This is relevant, for instance, for self-employed persons or small businesses that use technology or equipment in their daily business operations.

Burden of proof relief for victims

In many product liability cases, consumers run into a familiar problem: providing evidence. Proving that a product is defective and that this defect caused the damage often turns out to be quite a challenge in practice. Especially with complex or digital products, where technical knowledge lies with producers, the information gap for consumers is considerable.

The new directive accommodates consumers in this respect by introducing the term ‘legal presumptions’. In certain cases, it may be presumed that a product was defective and that there is a causal link between the defect and the damage suffered. This significantly eases the burden of proof.

Moreover, judges are given the power to require manufacturers to produce internal product information - for example, on design, manufacturing or software operation. This information can be decisive in substantiating a claim and gives consumers a stronger starting position against professional parties.

Conclusion

The new rules make one thing clear: product liability has been radically modernised and broadened. Consumers are given more options to get their damages compensated, while the number of parties that can be considered producers has been significantly expanded. In doing so, the EU is responding to a society in which digital technologies are at least as decisive as physical products and in which user protection must be central. EU member states have until 9 December 2026 to transpose the directive into national law.

Do you have a product liability problem? Ask one of our Corporate Law lawyers for advice!

On 21 March 2025, the Supreme Court issued an important judgment on the limitation period for claims for payment of pension contributions by industry pension funds. This ruling provides clarity on a point that regularly leads to disputes in practice: when does a pension fund's claim against an employer lapse?

In this ruling, Booking.com was sued by an industry pension fund for failing to pay its employees' pension contributions on time. Booking.com took the position that the claims were time-barred.

According to Section 3:308 of the Civil Code, a claim for payment of periodic amounts (such as pension contributions) is time-barred after five years from the time they become due. This provision was created partly to ensure legal certainty and prevent creditors from sitting idle for too long. But when exactly is such a premium payable?

That was the key legal question in this case. Is that the moment when the premium should theoretically have been paid (according to the regulations)? Or only when the pension fund discovers that the employer should have paid premium and therefore brings a claim?

The Supreme Court considered that, in principle, the moment of claimability is determined by what is stipulated about it in the fund's pension regulations. For example, if the fund has stipulated that contributions are due quarterly or monthly, then the contribution is claimable from that moment and the limitation period also starts to run.

However, the Supreme Court gives two exceptions to deviate from the rule of claimability. The first exception relates to when the employer deliberately withholds information regarding the payment of premium. This also applies when the employer knowingly communicates incorrect facts. In the event that the employer knowingly takes these actions, the limitation period only starts to run if the pension fund is aware of the correct facts. Another exception relates to when invoking the limitation period is unacceptable according to standards of reasonableness and fairness.

All in all, this judgment teaches us that pension funds should carefully formulate their regulations and remain active in collecting contributions. Employers would also do well to keep their records in order and be transparent towards the fund. Statute of limitations can be a powerful defence, but is certainly not a licence to remain silent or mislead.

If you have any questions, please contact Erwin den Hartog and Iris Keemink.

An employer can show trust in staff in many ways, this can be through the provision of a lease car or a laptop for example. But what if this trust is betrayed?

This was precisely what recently played out in a case at the Central Netherlands court. A temporary worker was given a lease car by the company where he worked, which he was also allowed to use privately. During working hours, however, he was involved in a traffic accident. Annoying in itself, but there was more to it here: he was on a driving ban at the time. As a result, the damages (€ 16,000,00+) were not insured.

This meant that the company itself paid for the damage. Naturally, they were not happy about this and therefore tried to recover the damages from the temporary worker himself. The latter thought this was unjustified. According to him, the employment agency, his formal employer, should then pay the damages. However, the court thought otherwise. It ruled that the case involved deliberately reckless behaviour. And in that case, an employee can be held personally liable for the damage caused.

Why is this interesting?

This ruling essentially deals with a broader issue than just an employee causing a traffic accident. It touches on the question: when is an employee personally liable for damage he or she causes while at work? The answer is that, in principle, employees are not personally liable for damage caused. But in cases of intent or conscious recklessness, as the court found present here, it is different. Then an employee can be held personally liable. And whether the person works through an employment agency or not need not make any difference in such a case.

Three lessons for business owners

1.    Trust is fine - but control is (sometimes) better
Are you giving someone a car, laptop or other valuable items? Then make sure you know who you are dealing with. Check for instance whether someone has a valid driving licence and whether there have been previous incidents. Prevention really is better than cure.

2.    Hiring? Still your responsibility
Even if you work with temporary workers, you may be liable for what happens. Make sure you have clear agreements with the agency and the temporary workers and take a critical look at your insurance policies.

3.    Reckless behaviour? Then you may intervene
If an employee consciously behaves irresponsibly, such as driving while disqualified, you as an employer do not have to stand idly by. So in such cases, it may be possible to recover damages from the employee personally, even if the employee is a temporary worker. 

Questions about the provision of lease cars, other company assets or damage caused by workers? If so, please contact Dennis Oud, Tim van Riel, Elke Hofman-Bijvank, or Tessa Sipkema.

We are proud to announce that we have extended our main sponsorship of Golf Club Capelle until the end of 2026!🥂

In recent years, we have worked with the club with great pleasure and commitment. Therefore, we are delighted to continue this cooperation - and that enthusiasm is mutual! Both we and Golfclub Capelle look forward to continuing to build together on beautiful sporting and business moments on and around the course.

Here's to more joint beautiful golf days!🎉