The decision - which adds to the already large body of case law on the subject in recent years, with rather mixed results - is based on the main following considerations:

• Uber directs many aspects of the driver's performance, giving indications or suggestions on how to carry out the service, through clauses in the contract or later communications with drivers.
• the company always knows the position of the driver connected to the app;
• drivers have to maintain an average rating, coming from users, to retain access to the platform, and Uber has the right to disable it otherwise.
• this indirect mechanism of user ratings monitors driver behaviour and employers can sanction drivers, disconnecting or deactivating their access to the platform.
• Uber sets the fare unilaterally and in its sole discretion may adjust it;
• drivers’ integration into Uber's organisation is absolute: the driver only displays the travel requests that Uber communicates to him, he does not establish direct contact with his 'customer' and Uber determines the monetary income that each of the trips the driver will earn.

The Court concluded with the existence of an employment relationship between the parties, based on an analysis of the indicators of subordination suggested by International Labour Organisation (ILO) Employment Relationship Recommendation (No. 198).

These factors have recently been analysed by labour courts in several countries around the world with varying results, as reported in our previous articles. In Belgium, for example, the Labour Court recently stated, on the contrary, that Deliveroo riders are self-employed.

This leads us to believe that the actual course of the relationship between the parties is the main key in the debate on the nature of the relationship between riders and platforms.