The decision stresses that all circumstances should be weighed in assessing whether an employment agreement exists. It concludes that, although the riders had a certain freedom to work whenever they wanted and to be replaced by someone else - which are typical elements of a contract for services - all other circumstances lead to the conclusion that the riders were, in fact, employees. In particular, the payment of wages, the relationship of authority, and working during a specific period indicate that an employment agreement existed.

The decision is important as the Court confirms and describes the relevant factors to be considered, such as: 

- how the work and the working hours are determined; 

 - the inclusion of the worker in the organisation of the employer;

- the existence or absence of an obligation to perform the work personally; 

- how the parties established the contractual arrangement;

- whether the worker runs a commercial risk in agreeing;

- whether the worker behaves as an entrepreneur;

- the importance of specific contractual clauses, depending on whether the clause has actual significance for the person performing the work.

Finally, we mention that the Supreme Court refrains from formulating new general rules for assessing if a worker is self-employed or an employee and from taking a position in the long debate on whether there is a reason for further interpretation of the legal phrase "employed by."

Legislation on this topic is ongoing at the national and the European level, so we need to wait for new laws dealing with this issue.