No right to work from home, but summary dismissal instead!

Employment Law

30 October 2025

No right to work from home, but summary dismissal instead!

Stelt u zich eens voor: u werkt al jaren met dezelfde zelfstandige. Hij stuurt facturen, factureert btw en heeft een eigen kvk-nummer. Toch krijgt u in 2026 ineens vragen van de Belastingdienst over de aard van uw samenwerking. Hoe heeft het zo ver kunnen komen?

A recent ruling by the subdistrict court provides clarity on the (im)possibilities of remote working from home (see District Court of Midden-Nederland, 1 July 2025, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2025:3416).

What was at stake?

A software engineer who had worked for his employer in the Netherlands since 1 March 2021 stayed behind in Romania after his holiday in June 2024 to care for his sick mother. He was initially granted unpaid leave, but subsequently refused – despite agreements made and repeated requests – to return to the Netherlands and report to the office on 2 September 2024.

The employee did not show up and did not respond either. After a telephone consultation, the employer offered to extend the unpaid leave until the end of September. However, the employee wanted unpaid leave until the end of the year. The employer rejected that request and indicated that if he did not appear on 1 October 2024, his salary would be stopped.

On 1 October 2024, the employee stated that he could only work remotely from Romania. The employer indicated it would stop his salary and urged the employee to still come to the Netherlands. In October and November, the parties discussed a possible termination by mutual consent. They failed to reach agreement.

When the employer discovered that the employee was working as a self-employed person in Romania, the employee received an official warning on 19 December 2024. And a second one on 30 January 2025, giving him one more chance to return to the Netherlands. The employee had to report to the office on 5 February 2025 at 09:00. When the employee did not show up, the employer summarily dismissed him.

The employee challenged the dismissal. He believed he had the right to work for the employer remotely, from Romania.

The subdistrict court ruled that the summary dismissal was valid and that the employee must repay more than €12,500 to the employer.

Key considerations of the subdistrict court:

No right to work entirely from home from abroad: the court established that neither the hybrid work policy nor the employment contract gives the employee the right to work entirely remotely (i.e. from Romania).
Reasonable instruction to be present at the office: the employer was entitled to require the employee – who was temporarily without assignments – to be present at the office in the Netherlands two days a week in order to work on his deployability.
Persistent refusal of a reasonable instruction as an urgent cause: the employee continued to refuse to come to the Netherlands, even after several warnings. This persistent refusal of a reasonable instruction qualifies as an urgent cause for summary dismissal (Section 7:678(2) of the Dutch Civil Code).
In choosing summary dismissal, the employer sufficiently took the employee’s personal circumstances into account. The employer made several attempts to impose less far-reaching measures, but the employee kept insisting that he was entitled to work entirely remotely from Romania.
The stopping of pay was justified: because the employee refused to work at the agreed location in the Netherlands, his salary could be stopped as of 1 October 2024.
Repayment of salary and correction to the 30% ruling: the employee must repay the salary he received in excess, including an additional assessment, since due to the unpaid leave he received less than the minimum taxable annual salary required to qualify for the 30% ruling (expat scheme).

What does this mean for you as an employer?

This ruling underlines that, as an employer, you may reasonably determine where the work is performed, especially if this is consistent with existing policy or working arrangements. Even with hybrid working, physical presence at the office remains a legitimate requirement in many cases. If an employee structurally refuses to comply, this can – after careful build-up and communication – lead to a valid summary dismissal. However, it is important to properly document the following:

The policy rules on hybrid working;
What you expect from the employee;
What arrangements have been made (for example, about leave or return);
And at which points the employee is in default.

Personal circumstances, such as informal caregiving, must also be taken into account, but they do not automatically give a right to structurally work from home from abroad.

Questions?

Do you have questions about home-working policy, employment law or dismissal procedures? The employment lawyers at The Legal Company are happy to think along with you. Feel free to contact us via info@thelegalcompany.nl or call 020 345 0152.

De afgelopen jaren stonden in het teken van de Wet VBAR, het wetsvoorstel dat een einde moest maken aan onduidelijkheid over de zzp’er. Het kabinet heeft delen van dat voorstel inmiddels geschrapt. Op het eerste gezicht is dat goed nieuws: minder regels, minder administratieve last. Maar in de praktijk blijven dezelfde toetsen overeind.

“De inhoud van de samenwerking is leidend, niet wat er op papier staat.”

De Belastingdienst handhaaft sinds 1 januari 2025 weer actief op schijnzelfstandigheid. En recente uitspraken van de Hoge Raad bevestigen dat rechters strikt toetsen of er sprake is van ondergeschiktheid en gezagsverhouding.

Voor uw praktijk betekent dit drie dingen. Een: leg de samenwerking duidelijk vast, met aandacht voor de inhoud. Twee: voorkom dat een zzp’er feitelijk werkt als werknemer. Drie: wees voorbereid op een controle, en weet hoe u de relatie kunt herzien als dat moet.

Heeft u vragen over uw concrete situatie? Wij sparren dagelijks met opdrachtgevers over hun zzp-relaties. Vraag een offerte op of bekijk onze Legal Safe abonnementen.