Short answer
EU courts generally look past the contract's label and examine the reality of the work. The recurring test asks whether, for a period of time, a person performs services for and under another person's direction in return for remuneration. Relevant facts include who controls the time, place and content of work; whether the person is integrated into the organisation; who bears commercial risk; whether the person can genuinely refuse work, appoint substitutes or serve competitors; and whether those freedoms exist in practice.
That test can include people described as self-employed and, in the right context, a shareholder-director. It does not make every dependent contractor an employee for every purpose. The court must identify the particular EU right—such as free movement, equal pay, working time or pregnancy protection—and national law still determines many employment consequences.
For platform work, Directive (EU) 2024/2831 will require fact-based status procedures and a rebuttable presumption where facts indicate direction and control. Member States have until 2 December 2026 to transpose it. As at 31 July 2026, it should not be presented as one uniformly operating EU-wide presumption.
The contract label is the starting evidence, not the answer
The Court of Justice first expressed the enduring test in Case 66/85, Lawrie-Blum. A trainee teacher counted as a worker for free-movement purposes because the arrangement's objective features met the test:
“The essential feature of an employment relationship, however, is that for a certain period of time a person performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he receives remuneration.” —
The three elements—services, direction and remuneration—remain the organising framework. “Direction” is usually the disputed one. Courts therefore examine the parties' rights and duties and how the work actually operates, not simply a clause saying “independent contractor”.
In Case C-256/01, Allonby, the Court applied an autonomous EU meaning of worker in the equal-pay context. It said the relationship must be assessed case by case from all the factors and circumstances. A national-law classification as self-employed cannot exclude worker status if the supposed independence is merely notional and disguises subordination. Conversely, a genuinely independent provider is not converted into a worker merely because the client imposes ordinary specifications for the purchased service.
Which facts show direction or genuine independence?
No single fact is conclusive. The evidence usually falls into four connected groups.
Control over performance. Who chooses the tasks, working time, place, method and content? Instructions, performance monitoring, sanctions and a practical inability to reject work can indicate direction. A customer can still define a result, deadline or safety standard without becoming an employer; the issue is how far control reaches into the person's work.
Commercial independence and risk. A genuine business normally decides its market conduct and bears meaningful upside and downside. Investment, pricing power, responsibility for costs and the possibility of profit or loss may support independence. Being paid for personal labour, with little control over price and little commercial risk, points the other way.
Integration. A person who operates as an auxiliary within the principal's undertaking, rather than as a separate market participant, is more readily characterised as a worker. Branding, uniforms or access to internal systems can be relevant, but the analysis concerns economic and organisational reality rather than appearance alone.
Personal service and outside work. A real ability to appoint qualified substitutes, reject tasks, set capacity and work simultaneously for competitors supports independence. A substitution clause that cannot realistically be used carries much less weight.
Case C-413/13, FNV Kunsten, brought those indicators together when examining musicians labelled self-employed for a competition-law dispute:
“The formal classification of a self-employed person under national law does not prevent that person being classified as an employee within the meaning of EU law if his independence is merely notional, thereby disguising an employment relationship”. —
The national court still had to decide whether the musicians were truly undertakings or “false self-employed”. The Court of Justice supplied the EU-law criteria; it did not determine disputed facts for the national proceedings.
What does the platform-delivery case establish?
Case C-692/19, B v Yodel Delivery Network, concerned working-time status under a services agreement. The Court decided it by an Article 99 order, not a judgment. On the facts described by the referring tribunal, the courier could use qualified substitutes, refuse tasks, cap the number accepted, serve competitors at the same time and set working hours within delivery parameters.
The Court considered those freedoms capable of showing genuine independence, but made the conclusion expressly conditional:
“the independence of that person does not appear to be fictitious” and “it is not possible to establish the existence of a relationship of subordination”. —
The order is not a checklist allowing every platform to reproduce those clauses on paper. The referring tribunal had to consider all relevant factors and the worker's actual economic activity. Algorithmic allocation, ratings, account suspension, pricing and practical penalties for refusal may reveal control even where a contract promises flexibility.
Can a shareholder-director be a worker?
Corporate office and share ownership do not automatically exclude worker status. In Case C-232/09, Danosa, the Court considered a member of a company's board under the Pregnancy Workers Directive. The relevant facts included whether she provided remunerated services, formed an integral part of the company, acted under the direction or supervision of another corporate body and could be removed from office.
The Court held that such a board member must be treated as a worker for that Directive if the work was performed for some time under another body's direction or supervision for remuneration. The national court had to establish those facts. A controlling owner who determines the company's conduct may be differently placed from a minority shareholder-director supervised and removable by another body.
This illustrates why titles are weak proxies. Courts map the real allocation of corporate power, supervision and economic dependence onto the purpose and definition in the EU measure at issue.
Worker status depends on the EU-law context
There is a strong common core across the cases, but there is no universal EU employment code. Lawrie-Blum concerned free movement, Allonby equal pay, Danosa pregnancy protection, FNV Kunsten the worker exception in competition law, and B v Yodel working time. A court first identifies the EU provision whose protection is claimed and asks whether it carries an autonomous worker concept.
National law then remains important. It governs employment contracts, remedies, procedure and classifications outside the harmonised field, subject to EU requirements. A person may therefore satisfy an EU worker concept for a particular right without every national tax, company-law or social-security question automatically following.
What the Platform Work Directive changes
Directive (EU) 2024/2831 requires Member States to establish effective procedures for determining the correct status of people performing platform work. Article 4 adopts the primacy of facts:
“The ascertainment of the existence of an employment relationship shall be guided primarily by the facts relating to the actual performance of work, including the use of automated monitoring systems or automated decision-making systems in the organisation of platform work, irrespective of how the relationship is designated in any contractual arrangement”. —
Article 5 requires an effective rebuttable legal presumption where facts indicating direction and control are found under national law, collective agreements or practice, with consideration to CJEU case law. The platform then bears the task of proving that the relationship is not employment as nationally defined.
The presumption applies to relevant administrative and judicial status proceedings. It does not automatically apply to tax, criminal or social-security proceedings, although a Member State may extend it. For relationships already running on 2 December 2026, it applies only to the period from that date.
This is a directive, so national transposition matters. The deadline is 2 December 2026. Before relying on the presumption, a reader must check the Member State's implementing legislation, effective date, procedure and any collective-agreement rules.
A practical status checklist
Evidence should describe practice over time rather than only the signed agreement:
- Which EU or national right makes the classification material?
- Who sets price, tasks, hours, place, method and performance standards?
- Can work genuinely be refused without loss of access, ranking or future opportunities?
- Is substitution real, affordable and routinely possible?
- Can the person build an independent customer base and work for competitors simultaneously?
- Who owns essential equipment and bears costs, bad-debt exposure and commercial risk?
- Is the person integrated into the organisation or operating a distinct business?
- Who monitors performance, and can an automated system reduce work, pay or account access?
- For a director, which corporate body supervises and can remove the person?
- Has the relevant Member State transposed Directive 2024/2831, and for which proceedings and dates?
Conclusion
EU courts decide non-standard worker status from the reality of services, remuneration and direction. Control over performance, integration and lack of commercial risk support worker status; genuine control over tasks, substitution, customers, time and business risk supports independence. Contract labels, corporate titles and tax classifications are not decisive.
The applicable EU measure and national law still shape the result. For platform work, the fact-based approach and rebuttable presumption in Directive 2024/2831 will sharpen the procedure after national transposition, but they do not yet amount to one uniformly applied EU rule as at 31 July 2026.
Sources
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific matter. Laws, facts and procedural deadlines may change the result. Follow the linked primary sources and obtain local advice before acting.