Finnish court: Food delivery drivers are employees for the purposes of employment law and income tax law

• Food delivery drivers working for digital platforms are employees for the purposes of employment law as well as income tax law. However, although they are employees, their work falls outside the scope of the Working time act as they enjoy a sufficient degree of autonomy regarding the scheduling of their work. This is, in summary, the purport of two recent decisions from the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court.

In a decision of May 2025 (KHO 2025:41]) the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) held that food delivery drivers working through the digital platform Wolt were employees for the purposes of the Finnish Working time act (872/2019). The dispute originated from a decision of the occupational safety and health authority, ordering Wolt to keep working-time records. After the company successfully challenged the order before the Hämeenlinna Administrative Court, the matter was brought before the SAC.

Because the Working time act applies only to employees, the first issue was whether the drivers satisfied the four criteria for an employment relationship under the Employment contracts act (55/2001). The court focused particularly on whether the work was carried out under the employer’s supervision.

In its claim, the occupational safety and health authority argued that the platform exercised control through its digital infrastructure, including task allocation, performance monitoring and customer-feedback systems. The company, by contrast, maintained that the contractual arrangement reflected genuine self-employment, emphasising the drivers’ freedom to choose when and whether to work and the possibility of engaging substitutes.

The court approached the issue through the lens of EU law. Referring to the working time Directive (2003/88) and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the court stressed that the concept of a worker is an autonomous concept of EU law and must be interpreted on the basis of the actual circumstances of the relationship rather than its contractual form. In this regard, the SAC relied in particular on Union syndicale Solidaires Isère (C-428/09), Haralambidis (C-270/13), FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media (C-413/13) and Yodel Delivery Network (C-692/19).

Drawing on this case law, the SAC emphasised that the assessment must focus on the worker’s actual degree of independence. Factors indicating genuine independence include freedom to use substitutes, freedom to accept or reject assignments, the possibility of working for competitors, and substantial autonomy concerning working time. At the same time, the court noted that digital platforms may exercise managerial authority through algorithmic management, data collection and performance evaluation. Such forms of control can fulfill the requirement of direction and supervision even in the absence of traditional workplace management.

Applying these principles, the SAC acknowledged several features traditionally associated with independent entrepreneurship. Drivers could choose when to log into the application, where to work and which assignments to accept. Nevertheless, the court attached particular significance to the platform’s ability to monitor and evaluate performance through the application and customer-feedback system. Information collected through the platform could affect remuneration and the continuation of the contractual relationship. Moreover, the company retained the power unilaterally to make decisions with significant consequences for the drivers, including reducing compensation and terminating access to the platform. The SAC therefore concluded that the criteria for an employment relationship under the Employment contracts act were satisfied.

Having found that the drivers were employees, the SAC turned to the applicability of the Working time act. The court interpreted the act in light of Article 17(1) of the working time Directive which permits derogations where the duration of working time is not measured or predetermined or may be determined by the workers themselves. Referring again to Union syndicale Solidaires Isère (C-428/09), the SAC held that the drivers enjoyed a sufficient degree of autonomy regarding the scheduling of their work. Consequently, although they were employees, their work fell outside the scope of the Working time act under the exemption concerning working-time autonomy. One justice dissented on the question whether the drivers should be classified as employees.

The significance of KHO 2025:41 was reinforced by a decision in May 2026 (KHO 13.5.2026/1304) which concerned the income-tax treatment of a partner in a general partnership (”öppet bolag” a company whose owners have unlimited, joint and several liability) providing food-delivery services through the platform. The SAC relied extensively on its earlier employment law analysis and held that the partner doing the deliveries was, in substance, working as an employee of the platform company. Accordingly, the remuneration constituted wage rather than business income, which, in practice, will lead to the platform company being responsible for withholding tax at source.

The ruling marks a noteworthy convergence between tax-law and employment-law assessments of the concept of employee. Although a degree of divergence has traditionally existed between these fields of law, the SAC considered that the factual characteristics of the relationship justified treating the courier as an employee for tax purposes as well. The decision was, however, not unanimous, it was reached by a vote of 3-2.

Marjo Ylhäinen, Senior Lecturer
University of Eastern Finland
KHO 2025:41, den 22 maj 2025 och
KHO 13.5.2026/1304, den 13 maj 2026