Council of State upholds quashing of warning against Uber Eats
The minister failed to substantiate sufficiently what a shutdown would mean for couriers and restaurants.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
The Council of State has quashed a warning against Uber Portier, the meal-delivery platform behind Uber Eats. According to the highest administrative court, the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment had failed to investigate sufficiently what a possible shutdown would mean for couriers and restaurants.
The case concerns a warning that preceded a possible ban on meal deliveries in Amsterdam. According to the ruling, the Labour Inspectorate wanted to be able to intervene because couriers without valid work permits were allegedly working through the platform. The Council of State did not establish that those labour-law violations did not exist.
The court ruled that, when issuing the warning, the minister must already assess how serious the impact of any shutdown would be. This requires consideration not only of the nature and scale of the violation, but also of the social and economic consequences for third parties.
According to the ruling, when issuing a warning the minister must make a reasonable estimate of the scope of a possible shutdown. Under the policy rules, it could last one, two or three months, depending on previous violations and the seriousness of the situation. Without such an estimate, the minister cannot properly weigh the consequences against the purpose of the measure.
The ruling does not mean that meal couriers without valid permits may continue working. Nor does it mean that a temporary shutdown is impossible forever. The minister will have to justify a new decision more thoroughly and take into account the consequences for couriers, restaurants and users.
This leaves Amsterdam restaurants and couriers facing continued uncertainty. A new decision could again lead to enforcement, but would then have to meet the administrative court's requirements. According to the ruling, the minister must also make clear the economic consequences for third parties in this warning.
Also show where in Europe and in the world
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The Council of State quashed the warning against the meal-delivery platform.
- The court found that the consequences of a possible shutdown for couriers and restaurants had not been made sufficiently clear.
- The ruling does not rule out a new, better-substantiated decision.
- The issue also concerns couriers without valid work permits.
Left
Arguments Enforcing labour rules should prevent vulnerable workers from operating outside the protection of the law, even if this creates costs for a platform or restaurant.
Values Workers' rights, equal treatment and protection against exploitation.
Consequences A new measure may still be necessary, but it must take account of the impact on couriers' incomes.
Centre
Arguments The court's approach calls for proportionate enforcement: violations must be addressed, but the government must substantiate the consequences for third parties in advance.
Values The rule of law, proportionality and enforceability.
Consequences This can lead to better decisions, but may also delay supervision.
Right
Arguments This perspective emphasises that platforms and businesses should not be shut down for extended periods by decisions that are procedurally insufficiently reasoned.
Values Entrepreneurship, legal certainty and scope for market forces.
Consequences A less severe measure can limit economic damage, but under this perspective must not turn into a policy of tolerance towards work-permit violations.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The ruling was checked against the published judicial decision. The text clearly distinguishes between quashing the warning and whether or not labour-law violations existed.
- confirmed The Council of State quashed the warning against Uber Portier. — The ruling found the reasoning behind the warning inadequate and upheld its earlier quashing. source
- confirmed The minister had to make the consequences for couriers and restaurants clear. — The ruling refers to the economic consequences for third parties and finds that these had not been made sufficiently clear. source
- confirmed Under the policy rules, a shutdown can last one, two or three months. — This is stated in the reasoning of the ruling. source
Editor's note
It is certain that the warning was quashed because the consequences were insufficiently substantiated. The ruling does not definitively decide whether violations existed or whether a future shutdown decision may be taken.Sources
- Uitspraak ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:6658 — Raad van State
- Waarschuwingsbesluit om maaltijdbezorgplatform stil te leggen definitief van tafel — Raad van State
More on this in Dutch media
- NU.nl — „uber eats”
- De Telegraaf — „uber eats”
- AD — „uber eats”