New Reality for Self-employed in Netherlands

Working relationships in the Netherlands are now being reclassified through a series of recent political and legal developments.

On 1 January 2025, the Netherlands lifted the enforcement moratorium on the DBA Act (Wet DBA), allowing the Dutch Tax Authorities to once again actively inspect and enforce cases of pseudo self-employment. Then on 21 February 2025, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled in the case between a taxi company and the trade union FNV that entrepreneurship on the part of a worker can genuinely affect the classification of a working relationship. On 27 March 2025, the government announced that it was amending proposed legislation on the Clarification of the Assessment of Working Relationships and Legal Presumptions (VBAR) to align the bill with this ruling. As a result of these developments, external entrepreneurship will now serve as a full-fledged assessment criterion on equal footing with other factors such as subordination (i.e. authority) or integration into an organisation.

Recent Law-Now articles ("Netherlands Supreme Court and parliament takes aim at bogus self-employment in 2025" and "Pension consequences of pseudo self-em­ploy­ment in the Netherlands") discussed these developments and their legal implications. The following article focuses on what these changes mean in practice for employers and HR professionals, and what actions are now necessary.

Development of the 'entrepreneurship' criterion

In an important ruling from 2023,  the Dutch Supreme Court reaffirmed that the qualification of a working relationship must be assessed holistically. This means all circumstances must be evaluated in context. The Supreme Court considered multiple factors, including the degree of authority exercised by the client, how the work is embedded within the organisation, and – in an approach particularly relevant now – the extent to which the worker behaves as an entrepreneur.

The Supreme Court elaborated further on the concept of entrepreneurship in its February 2025 decision in the case between the taxi company and FNV. The core question was whether entrepreneurial characteristics should be assessed solely within the specific working relationship (i.e. internal entrepreneurship) or whether factors outside that relationship (external entrepreneurship) are also relevant. External indicators of entrepreneurship may include having multiple clients, maintaining a business website, being registered with the Dutch Chamber of Commerce, or making business-related investments.

The Supreme Court made its position clear: external factors are also relevant in assessing entrepreneurship. This confirms that the legal classification of a working relationship may also depend on the worker’s conduct outside the scope of the specific engagement. Moreover, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that there is no hierarchy among the various assessment criteria. Entrepreneurship carries the same weight as other elements such as authority, organisational integration, or financial risk. As a result, organisations must consider the complete picture and document it. Merely using a model contract approved by the Dutch Tax Authorities as a checklist is no longer sufficient.

What this means in practice

The 2025 ruling establishes that entrepreneurship can no longer be treated as a secondary factor when assessing whether a person is genuinely self-employed. External entrepreneurship now carries equal weight alongside criteria such as authority and financial risk.

This significantly broadens the assessment framework. Employers must not only consider how work is performed but also evaluate whether the worker operates as an independent entrepreneur. This requires deeper insight into the worker’s business practices and more thorough due diligence by the client. Financial data, contracts, and other business documentation now play a more significant role. The government’s letter to parliament on 27 March 2025 acknowledges that information, such as VAT records or marketing efforts, is not always readily available to the client, further complicating the assessment process.

The proposed VBAR legislation builds upon these insights. Whereas the initial draft considered external entrepreneurship in cases of doubt, the government now proposes that this factor be treated as a fully-fledged criterion. In doing so, lawmakers plan to codify the Supreme Court's approach.

What you can do

To minimise risk and ensure compliance, we recommend aligning your practices with the Supreme Court’s guidance with the following practical steps:

• Reassess your current freelancer contracts and take the entrepreneurial status of the contractor into account. If this leads to a different conclusion about their self-employed status, document it in writing. Using approved model contracts or collaboration agreements can help prevent ambiguous or high-risk clauses (e.g. fixed work hours, mandatory presence at a location).
• Ensure that freelancers genuinely work independently and make this explicit in your communications. Where possible, grant freelancers greater autonomy. Focus on functional objectives (what needs to be achieved) rather than procedural instructions (how and when the work is done).
• Avoid direct instructions regarding working hours, methods, or required presence. If not avoided, the relationship is likely to be classified as an employment contract.

For more details on the classification of working relationships in the Netherlands, contact your CMS client partner or these CMS experts.