{"id":2447,"date":"2020-11-09T15:18:42","date_gmt":"2020-11-09T14:18:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/?p=2447"},"modified":"2025-08-25T09:57:02","modified_gmt":"2025-08-25T09:57:02","slug":"important-decision-of-the-supreme-court-employment-contracts","status":"publish","type":"news","link":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/?news=important-decision-of-the-supreme-court-employment-contracts","title":{"rendered":"Important decision of the Supreme Court – Employment contracts"},"content":{"rendered":"

Important Verdict of the Dutch \u00a0Supreme Court \u00a0– \u00a0Qualification of \u00a0Employment Contracts <\/strong><\/p>\n

Please find below a short summary in English of the Verdict of 6th November 2020.<\/p>\n

Supreme Court: the intention of the parties does not play<\/strong> a role in the question whether an agreement should be qualified as an employment contract. On the basis of this Verdict it is likely that more contracts will be qualified as an employment contract and not so-called free lance \/ consultancy agreements.<\/p>\n

Source: https:\/\/uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl\/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2020:1746&showbutton=true&keyword=qualification<\/a>+ labor agreement <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Art. 7: 610 BW<\/strong> describes the employment contract as the agreement whereby one party, the employee, undertakes to perform activities<\/u><\/p>\n

for a certain period of time in the service<\/u> of the other party, the employer, against wages<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>If the content of an agreement meets this description, the agreement must be regarded as an employment contract. It is irrelevant whether the parties actually intended to have the agreement be qualified as an employment contract. <\/strong><\/p>\n

What matters is whether the agreed set of rights and obligations comply with the legal description of the employment contract. Contrary to the interpretation based on the Groen \/ Schoevers 2 verdict, the intention of the parties therefore does not play a role in the question whether the agreement should be regarded as an employment contract.<\/strong><\/p>\n

3.2.3
\nThe qualification of an agreement referred to in 3.2.2 must be distinguished from the – preceding – question of which rights and obligations the parties have agreed upon. This question must be answered on the basis of the Haviltex standard. After the judge has established the agreed rights and obligations with the help of that criterion (explanation), he can assess whether that agreement has the characteristics of an employment contract (qualification) .<\/p>\n

3 3.2.4
\nFrom the considerations above in 3.2.2 and 3.2.3, it follows that the judgment of the Court of Appeal is evidence of an incorrect interpretation of the law insofar as the Court of Appeal considered that it was also important for the classification of the agreement whether the parties intended to enter into an employment agreement . The complaint is well-founded to that extent. However, this cannot lead to cassation. After all, the Court of Appeal also assessed whether it follows from the mutual rights and obligations agreed by the parties that the agreement concluded between them has the characteristics of an employment contract, and answered that question in the negative. The complaints directed against that judgment fail, as follows from 3.1.2 above and 3.3.2 and 3.4 below.<\/p>\n

\n

Hoge Raad: de intentie van partijen geen rol speelt bij de vraag of een overeenkomst moet worden aangemerkt als een arbeidsovereenkomst.
\nUit dit arrest zou geconcludeerd kunnen worden dat wellicht veel vaker sprake is van een arbeidsovereenkomst en bijvoorbeeld niet van zgn. free lance \/consultancy overeenkomsten.
\nBron: https:\/\/uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl\/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2020:1746&showbutton=true&keyword=kwalificatie+arbeidsovereenkomst<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 7:610 BW omschrijft de\u00a0arbeidsovereenkomst\u00a0als de overeenkomst waarbij de ene partij, de werknemer<\/strong>, zich verbindt in dienst van de andere partij<\/u><\/strong>, de werkgever, tegen loon<\/strong> gedurende zekere tijd arbeid te verrichten<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Indien de inhoud van een overeenkomst voldoet aan deze omschrijving, moet de overeenkomst worden aangemerkt als een\u00a0arbeidsovereenkomst. Niet van belang is of partijen ook daadwerkelijk de bedoeling hadden de overeenkomst onder de wettelijke regeling van de\u00a0arbeidsovereenkomst\u00a0te laten vallen. Waar het om gaat, is of de overeengekomen rechten en verplichtingen voldoen aan de wettelijke omschrijving van de\u00a0arbeidsovereenkomst. Anders dan uit het arrest Groen\/Schoevers2<\/a>\u00a0wel is afgeleid, speelt de bedoeling van partijen dus geen rol bij de bij de vraag of de overeenkomst moet worden aangemerkt als een\u00a0arbeidsovereenkomst.<\/em><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

3.2.3
\nDe hiervoor in 3.2.2 bedoelde kwalificatie van een overeenkomst moet worden onderscheiden van de \u2013 daaraan voorafgaande \u2013 vraag welke rechten en verplichtingen partijen zijn overeengekomen. Die vraag dient te worden beantwoord aan de hand van de Haviltexmaatstaf. Nadat de rechter met behulp van die maatstaf de overeengekomen rechten en verplichtingen heeft vastgesteld (uitleg), kan hij beoordelen of die overeenkomst de kenmerken heeft van een arbeidsovereenkomst (kwalificatie).3<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

3.2.4
\nUit het hiervoor in 3.2.2 en 3.2.3 overwogene volgt dat het oordeel van het hof getuigt van een onjuiste rechtsopvatting voor zover het hof voor de kwalificatie van de overeenkomst mede van belang heeft geacht of partijen de bedoeling hebben gehad een arbeidsovereenkomst aan te gaan. De klacht is in zoverre gegrond. Dit kan echter niet tot cassatie leiden. Het hof heeft immers ook beoordeeld of uit de door partijen overeengekomen wederzijdse rechten en verplichtingen volgt dat de tussen hen gesloten overeenkomst de kenmerken heeft van een arbeidsovereenkomst, en die vraag ontkennend beantwoord. De tegen dat oordeel gerichte klachten falen, zoals volgt uit 3.1.2 hiervoor en 3.3.2 en 3.4 hierna.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"iawp_total_views":3},"class_list":["post-2447","news","type-news","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nImportant decision of the Supreme Court - Employment contracts - Witscraft<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/?news=important-decision-of-the-supreme-court-employment-contracts\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Important decision of the Supreme Court - Employment contracts - Witscraft\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Important Verdict of the Dutch \u00a0Supreme Court \u00a0– \u00a0Qualification of \u00a0Employment Contracts Please find below a short summary in English of the Verdict of 6th November 2020. Supreme Court: the intention of the parties does not play a role in the question whether an agreement should be qualified as an employment contract. On the basis […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/?news=important-decision-of-the-supreme-court-employment-contracts\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Witscraft\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-08-25T09:57:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\\\/?news=important-decision-of-the-supreme-court-employment-contracts\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\\\/?news=important-decision-of-the-supreme-court-employment-contracts\",\"name\":\"Important decision of the Supreme Court - Employment contracts - Witscraft\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-11-09T14:18:42+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-25T09:57:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\\\/?news=important-decision-of-the-supreme-court-employment-contracts#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\\\/?news=important-decision-of-the-supreme-court-employment-contracts\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\\\/?news=important-decision-of-the-supreme-court-employment-contracts#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Important decision of the Supreme Court – Employment contracts\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"Witscraft\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Witscraft\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/witscraft-logo-1.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/witscraft-logo-1.svg\",\"width\":1327,\"height\":602,\"caption\":\"Witscraft\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Important decision of the Supreme Court - Employment contracts - Witscraft","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/?news=important-decision-of-the-supreme-court-employment-contracts","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Important decision of the Supreme Court - Employment contracts - Witscraft","og_description":"Important Verdict of the Dutch \u00a0Supreme Court \u00a0– \u00a0Qualification of \u00a0Employment Contracts Please find below a short summary in English of the Verdict of 6th November 2020. Supreme Court: the intention of the parties does not play a role in the question whether an agreement should be qualified as an employment contract. On the basis […]","og_url":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/?news=important-decision-of-the-supreme-court-employment-contracts","og_site_name":"Witscraft","article_modified_time":"2025-08-25T09:57:02+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/?news=important-decision-of-the-supreme-court-employment-contracts","url":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/?news=important-decision-of-the-supreme-court-employment-contracts","name":"Important decision of the Supreme Court - Employment contracts - Witscraft","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-11-09T14:18:42+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-25T09:57:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/?news=important-decision-of-the-supreme-court-employment-contracts#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/?news=important-decision-of-the-supreme-court-employment-contracts"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/?news=important-decision-of-the-supreme-court-employment-contracts#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Important decision of the Supreme Court – Employment contracts"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/","name":"Witscraft","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/#organization","name":"Witscraft","url":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/witscraft-logo-1.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/witscraft-logo-1.svg","width":1327,"height":602,"caption":"Witscraft"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/news\/2447","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/news"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/news"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/witscraft.roads-technology.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2447"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}