Platform work represents a major issue at both the European and national levels, particularly due to the widespread and ongoing expansion of the market for services operating on the basis of digital labour platforms. In the first part of our two-part series on the new draft law on platform work (hereinafter as the “Draft”)[1], we focused on all the fundamental changes and innovations under the draft law implementing Directive (EU) 2024/2831 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on improving working conditions in platform work, which introduces into the Czech legal order not only new concepts and institutes reflecting the specifics of platform work, but also affects the existing system of labour law (the first part can be found at the link here).
The proposed legislation does not merely represent partial regulation of a new form of work but also brings changes of a more general nature that may have an impact even beyond the framework of platform work and the economy itself.
The most debated proposed change is the proposal to amend the definition of dependent work, which is a key concept for defining the boundary between employment relationships and other forms of cooperation. We will address this change and its potential impacts in more detail in this second part of the article.
Context of the change in the definition of dependent work
Although the proposed law on platform work is conceived as a separate legal regulation, its significance extends far beyond the regulation of the platform economy. The Draft has a significantly broader impact, as it simultaneously amends several fundamental legal regulations, particularly the Labour Code, the Employment Act, and the Labour Inspection Act. While the regulation of platform work itself targets a relatively specific market segment, which is both a novelty tied to new technologies and still very volatile, the changes to the Labour Code affect the very foundations of labour law.
This is also why it can be said that the Draft contains two completely fundamental parts: the introduction of new institutes of platform work and their regulation, and the amendment to the definition of dependent work. The latter represents one of the key concepts of labour law, as it determines the boundary between employment relationships and other forms of cooperation.
It is therefore not just an amendment to a “new type of work,” but a redefinition of the rules according to which it is generally assessed whether a specific relationship should be subject to the Labour Code regime, and the violation of which is currently intensively monitored by the labour inspection authorities.
Current definition and its limits
According to the current wording of Section 2 of the Labour Code, dependent work is an activity performed within a relationship of the employer’s authority and the worker’s subordination, on behalf of the employer, according to the employer’s instructions, in person, for a wage or remuneration, at the employer’s expense, and during working hours. It must be performed in an employment relationship (basic employment relationship, agreement to complete a job, agreement to perform work), otherwise it is illegal work. This current definition of dependent work is based on a combination of several characteristics that, in the theory and practice of supervisory authorities and courts, are assessed on a substantive level, i.e., in their summary and mutual context. This approach has long been developed, particularly by the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court, and subsequently adopted into the inspection practice of labour inspection authorities.
A characteristic feature of this concept is the fact that no single characteristic is decisive on its own and that the assessment of dependent work is based on the overall picture of the relationship. Courts and administrative authorities could thus take into account a wide range of circumstances, including those not explicitly stated in the law.
This substantive approach was justified because it allowed for capturing the factual setup of the relationship regardless of its formal designation. At the same time, however, it led to a relatively low level of predictability. In practice, it was difficult to determine with certainty which specific setup of cooperation would already be considered dependent work and which would not. This problem has been significantly evident and continues to be evident especially in the area of cooperation with self-employed persons, typically in the IT sector.
New construction of the definition of dependent work
The proposed legislation responds to this development with a fundamental change in the construction of the definition of dependent work. From the current broader range of characteristics, only two basic elements are newly to be preserved: the performance of work on behalf of the employer and the performance of work within a relationship of the employer’s authority and the worker’s subordination.
While the first of these characteristics remains essentially unchanged, the second characteristic becomes the pivotal element of the entire definition and is newly elaborated in detail. The focus of the assessment of dependent work thus shifts precisely to the question of the existence of the relationship of authority and subordination.
New concept of authority and subordination
The proposed legislation fundamentally changes the way this relationship is to be assessed. Newly the relationship of authority and subordination is to be met only if the sub-characteristics set by law are cumulatively fulfilled.
These sub-characteristics include the organization of work by the employer, supervision of the performance of work, performance of work according to the employer’s instructions, and performance of work during working hours. Crucially, these elements must be fulfilled simultaneously, and it will not be possible to infer their fulfillment from other facts or expand them with other criteria.
This results in a significant shift toward greater legal certainty for all participating parties compared to the current state. While it was previously possible to infer the relationship of authority and subordination from a wider range of indications and evaluate it substantively, the new legislation introduces a de facto and de lege closed and formalized test, which limits the scope for extensive interpretation by labour inspection authorities, as well as subsequently by courts.
Moving current characteristics outside the definition
Another significant aspect of the proposed change is the systematic move of some traditional characteristics of dependent work outside the definition itself. This concerns in particular the personal performance of work, performance of work for a wage, salary or remuneration, performance of work at the employer’s expense and responsibility, and performance of work at the employer’s workplace or at another agreed-upon location.
These elements are no longer conceived as defining characteristics of dependent work, but as mandatory characteristics of dependent work, or rather of an employment relationship. The definition of dependent work is thus narrowed to its core elements, while other characteristics are moved to the level of consequences of its existence.
Reaction to case law and practice
The explanatory memorandum to the Draft states that the aim of this change is to react to existing case law, especially of the Supreme Administrative Court, which approached the interpretation of dependent work rather extensively. In decision-making practice, facts not explicitly stated in the law were also considered as indications of dependent work, which was long criticized by the professional public and especially by employers as a source of legal uncertainty.
This approach is clearly visible in the relatively recent decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. 7 Ads 52/2025, which concerned a company’s cooperation with programmers acting as self-employed persons. In that case, administrative authorities and courts inferred the existence of dependent work not on the basis of one determining characteristic, but on the basis of a summary of multiple circumstances which, in their entirety, evidenced the factual status of these persons as workers.
The programmers worked long-term and to an extent corresponding to a full-time job, while performing activity predominantly for a single client. They were integrated into its organizational structure, participated in team cooperation with workers, and worked on joint projects under similar conditions. At the same time, they performed work according to the instructions of the project manager, were subject to control, and recorded their work activity in the company’s internal systems.
A significant element was also the limitation of their autonomy. In practice, the programmers could not refuse individual orders, and, given the scope of cooperation, they had no real possibility of providing services to other entities, which led to their factual economic dependence. The Supreme Administrative Court explicitly emphasized that the decisive factor is not the formal designation of the relationship or the fact that the parties chose the cooperation regime voluntarily, but the factual setup of the relationship as such.
Crucially, the court based its assessment on a complex substantive evaluation of all relevant circumstances and refused to reduce the assessment to a formal fulfillment of individual characteristics. On the contrary, it explicitly stated that the assessment of dependent work must not slide into mechanical “pigeonholing,” but must be based on the overall character of the relationship and on whether the contracting parties factually maintain the position of equal business entities. The new definition of dependent work is intended to prevent this interpretation.
Impacts of the proposed change
The proposed change may have significant impacts on practice. On one hand, an increase in legal certainty can be expected, as the rules for assessing dependent work will be more clearly defined; on the other hand, a certain narrowing of the range of relationships considered as dependent work may occur if all sub-characteristics set by law are not fulfilled.
The change in the definition of dependent work will therefore affect not only platform work but also a wide spectrum of cooperation outside it, especially in areas where the use of flexible forms of cooperation is common. It will also significantly influence the assessment of the so-called “schwarz-system,” both from the perspective of entrepreneurs who have a wide range of compliance obligations in this regard, and from the perspective of supervisory authorities.
At the same time, however, it is necessary to expect that the practice of supervisory authorities in particular may change gradually, and it will certainly be necessary to subject the newly proposed legislation to analysis in the context of its practical application.
Conclusion
The proposed regulation of the definition of dependent work represents a conceptual shift from the current substantive approach to assessing dependent work toward a more formalized and, above all, normatively defined test.
The motivation for the proposed change is the effort to increase legal certainty and predictability, which is a long-perceived deficiency in the area of employment relationships. A clearer definition of individual characteristics and their closed list should contribute to the addressees of the legislation – especially employers and entrepreneurs – being able to better assess how they can set up their relationships while simultaneously complying with legal requirements.
The legislator’s effort to refine a key concept, which has so far been largely shaped by case law and application practice, can be perceived positively. The limitation of the scope for extensive interpretation by supervisory authorities and courts simultaneously suggests a shift toward greater contractual freedom and a relaxation of the possibilities for choosing forms of cooperation, especially in the case of contractors. The new legislation may thus contribute to flexible models of cooperation not being automatically burdened by uncertainty associated with the risk of their reclassification as dependent work, and not only in the context of the newly introduced platform work.
However, the proposed change itself does not mean that the doors are opening to the free use of contractors instead of workers – this needs to be stated quite openly.
At the same time, however, it must be added that the true impact of this change will depend primarily on its practical application. Only the decision-making practice of courts and supervisory authorities will show to what extent the new legislation will actually lead to greater predictability. It is already clear, however, that this will not be an isolated change, but an intervention that will affect a wide spectrum of labour and commercial relationships across the entire labour market.
If you have any questions regarding platform work or labour law in general, please do not hesitate to contact us.
[1] The Draft, including related supporting documentation, is available at this link.
Mgr. Jakub Málek, managing partner – malek@plegal.cz
Ráchel Kouklíková, lawyer – kouklikova@plegal.cz
7. 5. 2026