Uber driver: self-employed or employee?

The status of Uber drivers has been a source of legal debate in Belgium and abroad for years. A recent ruling by the Brussels Labor Court on June 13, 2025 sheds new light on the matter. In this important ruling, the court ruled that an Uber driver should indeed be considered an employee, and not a self-employed person. This judgment reforms the first instance judgment and confirms the earlier analysis of the Administrative Commission on the Regulation of Labor (CAR). This judgment is also perfectly in line with the principles of the recently adopted European Directive on platform work (EU) 2024/2831.

For platform workers, and in particular for drivers operating through the Uber platform in cities such as Brussels, Antwerp or Ghent, this is a ruling with potentially significant implications. Our firm, specializing in labor law in the platform economy, explains this important evolution for you.

The long road to the labor court: an overview

The qualification of an Uber driver's employment relationship has taken a complex legal course that reveals the essence of the debate surrounding the platform economy.

Step 1: The Administrative Commission (CAR) rules: employee

It all started when an Uber driver had his employment relationship reviewed by the Administrative Commission for the Regulation of Labor Relations (CAR).. On October 26, 2020, CAR ruled in its decision no. 187 that the relationship between the driver and Uber (specifically, Uber B.V. and the VZW B.P.R.A.) was to be considered an employment contract.

It relied on the legal presumption applicable in the passenger transport sector. According to the Labor Relations Act of Dec. 27, 2006 an employment relationship in certain industries is presumed to be an employment contract if the facts show that a certain number of criteria are met. The CAR determined that the driver:

• Carried no financial or economic risk whatsoever.
• Had no responsibility or decision-making power over Uber's financial resources.
• Had no say in purchasing or pricing policies, which were unilaterally set by Uber.
• In practice, he did not have the opportunity to work for his own clientele or present himself as a company of his own.

Because sufficient criteria were met, the legal presumption of an employment contract applied. According to CAR, Uber failed to rebut this presumption using the four general criteria (will of the parties, freedom of organization of work, freedom of organization of working time and the possibility of hierarchical control).

Step 2: Labor court rules: self-employed person

Uber and the NPO B.P.R.A. appealed CAR's decision. At December 21, 2022 the French-speaking labor court in Brussels ruled differently. The court held that Uber had indeed successfully rebutted the legal presumption.

The court ruled that the general criteria favored independent cooperation. For example, there would be no hierarchical control by Uber, but rather a quality supervision common between independent service providers. The court also attached great importance to the parties' contractually expressed desire to work together as independent contractors. Consequently, the claim for requalification was rejected.

The June 13, 2025 labor court ruling: the final confirmation?

The driver and the NSSO did not stop there and lodged an appeal. The Brussels Labor Court has now, in its ruling of June 13, 2025, completely dismissed the reasoning of the Labor Court and upheld the CAR's original decision.

The labor court reforms the first judge's ruling and finds that the driver's employment relationship does fall under the rules of an employment contract. The crux of the court's argument is that the labor court misjudged the four general criteria. The court finds that, when analyzing the actual performance of the contract, a bond of subordination does exist. The driver's "freedom" is largely an illusion, considering:

• Control through the algorithm: The court acknowledged that the instructions, pricing and evaluations conducted through the Uber application amount to a modern form of employer authority.
• The lack of true entrepreneurial freedom: The driver has no control over fares, cannot build his own customer base and is completely dependent on Uber-supplied rides for income.
• Reality prevails over contractual qualification: The labor court reiterated a basic principle of labor law: the actual performance of the relationship is more important than the designation given to it by the parties.

By reforming the judgment of the labor court, the labor court ratifies de facto CAR's analysis. Thus, the driver is considered an employee, with both companies (Uber and B.P.R.A.) as employers.

A new European framework: the platform work directive

The Brussels labor court ruling is not an isolated case. It is reinforced by the new European Directive (EU) 2024/2831, which aims to address false self-employment in platform work across Europe. This directive, which Belgium must transpose into national law by Dec. 2, 2026, enshrines some crucial principles:

1. A legal presumption of employment (Article 5): The directive requires all member states to introduce a legal presumption. A platform employee is presumed to be an employee as soon as there are facts indicating direction and supervision by the platform. The burden of proof to prove otherwise is entirely on the platform.
2. Priority of Facts (Article 4): It explicitly states that the nature of the relationship should be determined based on the actual performance of the work, regardless of what the relationship is called in the contract.
3. Rules for algorithmic management (Chapter III): It prohibits platforms from making important decisions (such as suspending an account) fully automated and requires human oversight

What are the implications of this ruling?

Both this ruling and the new European directive are important for the platform economy in Belgium.

1. A support for platform workers: Drivers and other platform workers (such as couriers) who believe they are in a similar situation of "false self-employment" will see their position significantly strengthened. It becomes significantly easier for them to claim their rights as employees.
2. Increased risk for platform companies: For platforms such as Uber, Deliveroo and others, the risk of re-qualifying their employees is becoming increasingly real. A reclassification to an employee status carries significant financial consequences, such as the payment of past due social security contributions, vacation pay, and the application of severance law. In a ruling by October 10, 2024 for example, a bicycle courier working for Uber Eats was also recognized by the labor court in Antwerp as an employee entitled to compensation for a work-related accident after an accident.

Do you have questions about your status?

Are you yourself operating as a driver, courier or freelancer through a digital platform and in doubt about your status? Or are you a company working with platform workers and want to secure your legal position? The line between self-employment and employment in the platform economy is complex and the stakes are high.

It is crucial to be assisted by An attorney with expertise in employment law. Our office closely follows these evolutions and offers specialized advice to both platform workers and companies.