July 2, 2026
Author: Lawyer Enrico Germano
1. The Current Regulatory FrameworkIn Swiss law, the classification of the employment relationship is based on the provisions of the Swiss Code of Obligations (Federal Act on the Amendment of the Swiss Civil Code) (Art. 319 et seq. CO), which define the employment contract as an agreement by which the employee undertakes to perform an activity in the service of the employer in exchange for payment of a salary1. A central element is the subordination relationship.
According to consistent case law of the Federal Supreme Court, the classification of a legal relationship does not depend on its contractual name, but on the specific circumstances, in accordance with the principle of the primacy of economic reality2.
In addition to subordinate employment, the legal system recognizes self-employment, characterized by the absence of subordination and the assumption of economic risk. Furthermore, the Federal Law on Placement and Leasing of Personnel (LC; RS 823.11) regulates leasing of work, which occurs when a worker is formally employed by a company but carries out work under the direction of a third party3.
2. Characteristics of Platform WorkPlatform work presents unique characteristics that impact the legal classification of the relationship. Specifically, platforms exercise significant control through technological tools such as:
- algorithmic assignment of services
- rating systems
- geolocation
- continuous performance monitoring
These elements give rise to a form of functional or algorithmic subordination. As noted in legal literature, “managerial power does not disappear, but is transformed, being incorporated into the platform’s digital architecture”4.
The Federal Supreme Court identifies subordination as the decisive criterion for distinguishing between employed and independent work. It is manifested through:
- the power to issue instructions
- integration into the company organization
- economic dependence
Furthermore, the Federal Supreme Court has clarified that subordination can take various forms, not necessarily traditional, and must be assessed functionally and substantively5.
4. Case Law Analysis4.1 The Uber Case (Geneva)
In its ruling 2C_34/2021 of May 30, 2022, the Federal Supreme Court confirmed the classification of Uber drivers as employees. The Court noted that Uber:
- sets fares
- establishes the terms of service
- exercises control via the app
In particular, the Federal Supreme Court emphasizes that drivers are integrated into the organization of the transport service operated by Uber and subject to a system of monitoring and evaluation6.
4.2 Decisions 2C_575/2020 and 2C_34/2021
In these decisions, the Federal Supreme Court expressly rules out Uber as a mere technological intermediary. The Federal Supreme Court holds that the company organizes and controls the provision of transportation services, exercising a typical employer role7.
4.3 The Uber Eats case and leasing of workers
In more recent case law relating to the UberEats app of February 5, 2025, the Federal Supreme Court examined models characterized by the interposition of third-party companies (e.g., Chaskis SA). In these cases, the Court held that the Federal Law on Placement and Leasing of Personnel (LC) was applicable, classifying the relationship as leasing of workers8.
The Federal Supreme Court emphasizes that the management power remains with the platform, while the intermediary performs a formal function, thus constituting a type of staff leasing.
A coherent line of interpretation emerges from the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court: prevalence of economic reality, centrality of control (including algorithmic) and a tendency to reduce relationships to the sphere of subordinate employment or loaned work9.
1 Art. 319 cpv. 1 CO
2 DTF 129 III 664, consid. 3.2
3 Art. 12 ss. LC
4 WYLER/HEINZER, droit du travail, 4a ed., Berna 2019, Précis de droit Stämpfli
5 DTF Decision 121 I 259, consid. 3a
6 DTF Decision 2C_34/2021 of 30.05.2022, consid. 4.3
7 DTF Decision 2C_575/2020, consid. 5.2
8 DTF Decision 2C_46/2024 of 5.02.2025 (case Uber Eats/Chaskis)
9 REHBINDER/STÖCKLI, Berner Kommentar, der Arbeitsvertrag, Stämpfli Verlag
