2016/30 Members of a Board of Directors are ‘individual contractors’, not self-employed ‘entrepreneurs’ (PL)

The Supreme Court in this case establishes conditions to be met in order for the member of a Board of Directors to qualify as a self-employed “entrepreneur”. In light of these conditions, Directors must be considered to have the status of “individual contractor”, obligating them to pay increased social security contributions.

2016/30 Members of a Board of Directors are ‘individual contractors’, not self-employed ‘entrepreneurs’ (PL)

The Supreme Court in this case establishes conditions to be met in order for the member of a Board of Directors to qualify as a self-employed “entrepreneur”. In light of these conditions, Directors must be considered to have the status of “individual contractor”, obligating them to pay increased social security contributions.

Case C-97/16. Self-employment

Must the definition of ‘mobile worker’ given in Article 3(d) of Directive 2002/15/EC be...

Case C-97/16. Self-employment

Must the definition of ‘mobile worker’ given in Article 3(d) of Directive 2002/15/EC be...

2016/12 ‘Independent contractors’ working in a subordinate relationship may in reality be employees (FR)

An ‘independent contractor’ working for a company in a subordinate relationship should be considered as a de facto employee. In such a situation, the company and its legal representatives can be held liable for ‘concealed work’ and be subject to criminal penalties.

2016/7 The prohibition against gender-based discrimination applies to self-employed contractors (HU)

In accordance with EU law, the prohibition against gender-based discrimination (in this case: dismissal relating to pregnancy) cannot be limited to employment relationships as defined in national law: it must also apply to other types of legal relationship, where one party provides services to another party for consideration, for an open-ended period of time under the supervision of a principal.

2016/7 The prohibition against gender-based discrimination applies to self-employed contractors (HU)

In accordance with EU law, the prohibition against gender-based discrimination (in this case: dismissal relating to pregnancy) cannot be limited to employment relationships as defined in national law: it must also apply to other types of legal relationship, where one party provides services to another party for consideration, for an open-ended period of time under the supervision of a principal.

2016/12 ‘Independent contractors’ working in a subordinate relationship may in reality be employees (FR)

An ‘independent contractor’ working for a company in a subordinate relationship should be considered as a de facto employee. In such a situation, the company and its legal representatives can be held liable for ‘concealed work’ and be subject to criminal penalties.

2015/34 Employee who resigns for ‘good cause’ bears burden of proof in respect of the cause (LA)

An employee of a company who is also a member of its Management Board has two capacities, that of employee and that of Board member, even where there is one single contract that covers the employee’s work in both capacities. As far as termination is concerned, each capacity is governed by its own set of rules. Therefore, if such an employee claims compensation for having had to resign with immediate effect for ‘good cause’, the court must assess each element of the ‘good cause’ according to the appropriate set of rules. It is generally the employee that bears the burden of proof that he or she had good cause to resign with immediate effect. The fact that the employee was (allegedly) unlawfully suspended does not satisfy that proof.

<strong>2015/34 Employee who resigns for &lsquo;good cause&rsquo; bears burden of proof in respect of the cause (LA)</strong>

An employee of a company who is also a member of its Management Board has two capacities, that of employee and that of Board member, even where there is one single contract that covers the employee’s work in both capacities. As far as termination is concerned, each capacity is governed by its own set of rules. Therefore, if such an employee claims compensation for having had to resign with immediate effect for ‘good cause’, the court must assess each element of the ‘good cause’ according to the appropriate set of rules. It is generally the employee that bears the burden of proof that he or she had good cause to resign with immediate effect. The fact that the employee was (allegedly) unlawfully suspended does not satisfy that proof.