Description
The case involved Monsieur Y Z, a bicycle courier, appealing against a Paris Labour Court (Conseil de Prud'hommes) decision. The Labour Court had declared itself materially incompetent to hear his claims against Deliveroo France (SAS DELIVEROO FRANCE) for back pay, damages, etc., ruling that the dispute should be heard by the Commercial Court (Tribunal de Commerce)
The central issue for the Court of Appeal was whether M. Y Z had an employment contract (contrat de travail) with Deliveroo, which would establish the Labour Court's jurisdiction, or if he was an independent service provider (prestataire de services indépendant)
.Y Z was registered as an "auto-entrepreneur" (self-employed). Under French law (Art. L.8221-6), individuals registered as such are presumed not to be employees unless it can be proven they operate under conditions of permanent legal subordination to the client. The burden was on M. Y Z to prove this subordination existed. However, while M. Y Z signed a "service provision contract" explicitly stating independence [cite: 11, 27-31, 33], the court examined the actual working conditions.
Indicators of Independence:
- Freedom to Work: Ability to choose working hours and zones.
- No Sanctions: No penalties for refusing shifts.
- No Exclusivity: Freedom to work with competitors.
- Own Equipment: Primarily used own bicycle.
- Limited Control: Suggestive, not enforced, directives from Deliveroo.
Arret 9 Novembre 2017 N. 16/12875
- Actors
-
Court
- Sector
-
Transportation and storage