譯者 | 林 涵 荷蘭萊頓大學 LL.M.
一審 | 李梓源 英國布里斯托大學LL.M.
二審 | 王槐語 UCB LL.M.
編輯 | 陳珏雯 西南政法大學本科
Loca 中國社會科學院大學
責編 | 扎恩哈爾 新疆農業大學
荷蘭法院判決Uber透過演算法對司機進行高度控制構成間接僱傭關係
荷蘭工會聯合會（Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging，簡稱FNV）與幾位Uber司機提起訴訟，指控Uber透過演算法自動化管理和解僱司機的方式不合法。FNV認為，Uber透過其平臺演算法對司機進行高度控制，實際形成了一種間接的僱傭關係，但Uber未能告知司機具體的演算法運作細節，未履行對員工管理的透明度義務。
本案的核心爭議在於，Uber是否憑藉使用演算法對員工進行高度控制的方式，與這些員工形成了實際上的僱傭關係。FNV質疑Uber是否存在對司機的“現代化權力關係”，使得Uber的演算法管理構成了實際的僱傭控制。
阿姆斯特丹地方法院認為，雖然Uber透過演算法對司機進行管理是間接的，但其演算法的“現代化權力關係”本質上仍然對司機具有約束和控制作用。法院指出，Uber的演算法透過對司機評分、分配任務、限制賬戶使用等方式，對司機的行為形成了約束，並可能導致不公平的解僱和歧視。
判決全文
14. In essence, the dispute comes down to the question of whether the relationship between Uber and the drivers, who, in person, transport passengers by road with a passenger car through the Uber app, should be qualified as a contract of employment. If so, it should then be assessed whether the CLA for Taxi Transport is applicable, and what this further implies for the various components of the claim. Fleet Partners or drivers who offer taxi services as ‘Drivers under Partner’ through the Uber app are therefore not taken into account.
14. 實質上，本案爭議的核心在於，透過Uber運送乘客的司機與Uber之間的關係是否應被認定為僱傭合同關係。如果是，則應評估計程車運輸集體勞動協議（CLA for Taxi Transport）是否適用，以及這對索賠的各方面因素造成的進一步影響。因此，透過Uber應用提供出租車服務的車隊或作為“合作司機”的車主不在考慮範圍內。
Uber之辯護理由：Uber認為荷蘭工會聯合會（FNV）沒有根據《計程車運輸集體勞動協議》（CLA）提出訴求的權利。其認為，使用其平臺的司機並非 Uber 的僱員，而是獨立承包人，因此 FNV 作為工會無權要求 Uber 遵守該集體協議。Uber 辯稱自己只是一個科技公司，為乘客和司機提供聯絡平臺，而非負有 CLA 義務的僱主。
15. It should be noted at the outset that an employees' organisation that is a party to a collective labour agreement [CLA] such as FNV, can, as a contracting party, of its own accord demand the fulfilment of obligations included in that CLA from an employer who is a member of the contracting employers' organisation. Insofar as a CLA has been declared universally binding, this also applies to employers who are not affiliated with the employers’ organisation under the CLA. In order to be able to file such a claim, it is not required that employees have resisted or objected to the conduct of their employer.
15. 首先應指出，作為集體勞動協議（CLA）簽署方的員工組織（如FNV）可以作為締約方，要求同為締約方的僱主履行CLA中所含義務。此外，因為CLA已經被認可具有普遍約束力，所以其同樣適用於未加入該僱主組織的僱主。在提起此類訴訟時，員工不需要表現出對僱主行為的反對或抵制。
（圖片來源於網路）
After all, as a contracting party, the employees’ organisation has its own interest in and right to compliance (cf. ECLI:NL:HR:2021:413 [party], r.o. 3.3.2). FNV bases its claims on the assertion that Uber falls under the universally binding CLA for Taxi Transport [CAO Taxivervoer]. FNV is a party to this collective labour agreement, and therefore has its own interest and right of action. Insofar as the defence is directed against this, it fails.
作為締約方，員工組織在CLA的執行上有其自身的利益和權利（參見ECLI:NL:HR:2021:413【當事方】，r.o. 3.3.2）。FNV認為自己有獨立訴訟權的主張基於具有普遍約束力的計程車運輸集體勞動協議（CAO Taxivervoer），該協議適用於Uber公司。由於FNV是該協議的簽署方，其在該協議下擁有獨立的利益和訴訟權。Uber公司的辯護未獲得支援。
Employment contract
僱傭合同
16. Unlike in Groen/Schoevers (ECLI:NL:HR:1997: ZC2495) and X./Gemeente Amsterdam (ECLI:NL:HR:2020:1746), in view of FNV’s claim it involves all drivers who have registered in person and drive through the Uber app, so that no review of the agreement between an individual driver and Uber takes place. Only the general characteristics of the legal relationship between the drivers and Uber are involved in this case. Contrary to what Uber has argued, this does not preclude a substantive assessment of the legal relationship, since the principles are the same for every driver who uses the Uber app.
16. 與Groen/Schoevers案（ECLI:NL:HR:1997: ZC2495）和X./Gemeente Amsterdam（ECLI:NL:HR:2020:1746）不同，根據FNV的主張，本案因涉及所有親自注冊並透過Uber應用提供服務的司機，因此不會單獨審查某一司機與Uber之間的具體協議。本案雖然僅涉及司機與Uber之間一般法律關係，但與Uber的主張相反，因Uber對每位司機的適用原則均相同，主張一般法律關係並不排除對該法律關係的實質性評估。
（圖片來源於網路）
17. The assessment framework to determine whether it involves an employment contract is formed by Article 610 of Book 7 of the Dutch Civil Code [Burgerlijk Wetboek, abbreviated to BW], further elaborated by, among other things, the two judgments referred to above. This means that the content of the rights and obligations of the parties should be determined with respect to each other, whereby, if necessary, an explanation based on the Haviltex standard [Haviltex maatstaf] and the actual (material) relationship the parties envisaged may play a role, as well as the way in which the parties have actually implemented the agreement.
17. 判斷是否構成僱傭合同由荷蘭民法典第7編第610條（Burgerlijk Wetboek，簡稱BW）決定，並透過上述兩個判決以及其他相關內容進行解釋。這意味著應在當事人之間確定權利和義務的內容，並在必要時基於Haviltex標準（Haviltex maatstaf）以及當事人的實際（實質）關係進行解釋，同時考慮當事人實際履行協議的方式。
On the basis of the content of the agreement established in this manner, it can then be determined whether the agreement contains the characteristics of an employment contract, or, for example, of a service provision agreement [Overeenkomst van Opdracht, abbreviated to OvO]. In this respect, no single factor is decisive, but the different legal effects that the parties have attached to their relationship should be examined in relation to each other.
透過該方式確定的協議內容，可以據此進一步判斷該協議是否具備僱傭合同的特徵，或者是否屬於服務提供協議（Overeenkomst van Opdracht，簡稱OvO）。如經過上述判斷沒有單一的決定因素，則應結合當事人之間的法律關係所產生的不同法律效果進行綜合評估。
18. In brief, the characteristics of an employment contract are labour, wages, and authority, now that it has been widely accepted in case law that 'in the service of' implies a relationship of authority. With regard to these elements, the following is considered on the basis of the established facts and the proceedings at the hearing.
18. 簡而言之，僱傭合同的特徵包括勞動、工資和權力關係，在現行判例法中已普遍接受“在服務中”隱含權力關係的觀點。以下內容基於既定事實和聽證程式對如上要素進行了評估。
Performing work in person
親自從事工作
19. There is no doubt that the drivers carry out work for Uber. They transport passengers for Uber through the Uber app. The activities are also useful for Uber, now that they have added value for the company through the use of the Uber app, because it is entitled to a percentage of the fare.
19. 毫無疑問，司機為Uber工作。他們透過Uber app為Uber運送乘客。該行為對Uber也有用處，因為乘客透過使用Uber app為公司增加了價值，Uber有權獲得部分車費。
（圖片來源於網路）
20. Uber's defence that it is merely a technology company running a platform on which users can interact and enter into agreements with each other, including taxi services, is rejected. After all, as a result of the fact that drivers have to agree to the conditions set by Uber to be admitted to its platform, they enter into an agreement with Uber to offer transport services. Moreover, transport services are the core of Uber's activities, and Uber's entire organisation is geared towards ensuring that as many rides as possible are made, and that enough drivers are active on all days and at all hours to carry out these transport services for Uber. That is Uber’s revenue model.
20. Uber被駁回的辯護理由是：Uber僅是一個技術公司，只是在執行一個使用者可以在其中互動並達成各類協議（包括計程車服務）的平臺。畢竟，由於司機必須同意Uber設定的條件才能進入平臺，他們實際上與Uber達成了提供運輸服務的協議。此外，運輸服務是Uber活動的核心，Uber的所有行為都旨在確保儘可能多的行程被完成，並且保證在所有時間都有足夠的司機為Uber提供運輸服務。這就是Uber的收入模式。
21. The fact that the relationship with the drivers is constructed by Uber in the form of a subscription to the Uber app, and that the drivers pay a fee of 25% of the fare for using that app, does not change this. The point is that the drivers actually carry out the transportation of people that is offered through the Uber app for Uber.
21. 雖然Uber與司機之間的關係看似是透過司機訂閱Uber應用並需支付25%的車費建立的，但這並未改變關鍵事實：司機實際上是為Uber及使用Uber的乘客提供運輸服務。
（圖片來源於網路）
22. Regardless of whether the requirement that the work must be carried out in person applies or whether the personal performance of work must be regarded as instructional authority [instructiebevoegdheid] and therefore as authority, Uber explicitly verifies, by means of a selfie to be taken by the drivers, whether the work is performed in person. It makes no difference that the reason for this lies in the legal requirement that a driver must have the aforementioned permits and therefore cannot be replaced by a substitute driver. It is clear that a driver carries out in person any ride accepted by him.
22. 不管對司機親自完成工作的規定是否看作是一種指示性權力（instructiebevoegdheid），Uber都明確要求司機上傳自拍照來證明工作是由本人完成的。雖然這個要求是因為法律規定司機必須持有相應的許可，不能由別人代勞，但這並不影響Uber對此有著明確的規定。因此很明顯，司機們會親自完成他們接手的每一個訂單。
Pay
報酬
23. Wage is the consideration agreed on for the work performed. The fact that the drivers receive compensation for a taxi ride is not disputed. The actual procedure is as follows. In line with the agreement with the drivers, Uber receives the request for the taxi ride, and then determines – through the algorithm – which driver is to be offered the ride, as well as the route and the expected fare. On completion of the ride, Uber receives the fare and pays the driver minus the service costs. The fare is payment for transporting those passengers (the drivers’ work).
23. 工資是對（司機）完成工作的約定對價。司機因計程車服務獲得報酬這一點沒有爭議。實際程式如下：根據與司機簽訂的協議，Uber在收到乘客的計程車行程請求後，會透過演算法來決定將訂單分配給哪位司機，並確定行駛路線和預計的車費。一旦行程結束，Uber會收到車費，並從中扣除服務費後，將剩餘部分支付給司機。這部分車費，就是司機運送乘客（即司機的工作）所得到的報酬。
（圖片來源於網路）
24. The fact that the passengers pay the fare to Uber Pay (another entity), and that Uber Pay pays the drivers the portion due to them, does not mean that the drivers do not receive a wage from Uber for their work. Neither the name of the wage nor the form of payment is important.
24. 乘客將車費支付給Uber Pay（另一個實體），而Uber Pay將應付部分支付給司機的事實，並不意味著司機沒有從Uber獲得工資報酬。工資的名稱或支付形式並不重要。
In the service of:
relationship of authority
服務中：權力關係
25. The question as to whether there is a relationship of authority is still the most characteristic criterion when distinguishing between an employment contract and another type of employment relationship, and is therefore decisive for the question of whether it involves an 'employee' or, for example, a selfemployed person without personnel [in Dutch referred to as zelfstandige zonder personeel, abbreviated to zzp’er]. It plays a key role in the assessment.
25. 判斷是否存在權力關係仍然是區分僱傭合同與其他型別勞動關係的最具特色的標準。因此，這對於判斷該合同是有關“員工”還是諸如沒有僱員的個體經營者（在荷蘭被稱為zelfstandige zonder personeel，簡稱zzp'er）具有決定性的影響。這一點在評估中扮演著關鍵角色。
26. In today's technologydominated age, the criterion of 'authority' has taken on a more indirect (often digital) monitoring function that deviates from the classical model. Employees have become more independent, and conduct their work at more variable (selfchosen) times. It is judged that the relationship between Uber and the drivers involves this ‘modern relationship of authority’. The following applies by way of explanation.
26. 在當今技術主導的時代，“權力”標準已演變為一種更為間接的（通常是數字化的）監督功能，與經典模型有所不同。員工變得更加獨立，在更加靈活（自選）的時間進行工作。據此判斷，Uber與司機之間的關係屬於這種“現代權力關係”。以下內容可作解釋。
27. The drivers can only register with Uber through the Uber app. The conditions under which they can start using the Uber app are nonnegotiable; they must first fully accept all conditions in order to be able to provide taxi rides by way of the app. Uber unilaterally determines the terms under which the drivers work, which Uber can also unilaterally change. This happens frequently. The drivers cannot reject these changes; if they are to continue driving through the Uber app, they must accept the changed conditions before they can log in again.
27.
司機只能透過Uber應用註冊。他們開始使用Uber應用的條件不可協商；他們必須先完全接受所有條件才能透過應用提供運輸服務。
Uber單方面決定司機的工作條件，並且Uber也可以單方面更改這些條件。這種情況經常發生。司機無法拒絕這些更改；如果他們要繼續透過Uber應用進行服務，必須先接受更改的條件才能再次登入。
（圖片來源於網路）
28. The algorithm of the Uber app then determines how the rides are allocated and prioritised. It does this on the basis of the priorities set by Uber. As explained by Uber at the hearing, when a ride is offered, Uber provides a limited amount of data, so that the driver cannot accept only those rides most advantageous for him.
28. Uber的軟體演算法決定了訂單的分配和優先順序均按照Uber的規則進行。就像Uber在聽證會上說的那樣，當有新的行程訂單時，為了避免司機只挑對自己有利的單子，Uber只會提供一些基本的資料。Uber app會決定先給哪個司機派單。Uber基於此演算法推薦路線，並根據該路線向乘客收取車費。
The Uber app determines which driver is to be offered a ride (first). A route is recommended on which the fare indicated to the customer is based. The drivers have no influence on that price, as Uber sets the fares. Although the customer and the drivers can mutually agree to adjust the fare by taking a route other than the one proposed, there is no question of free negotiation between passenger and driver. After all, it is very unlikely that a passenger will agree to a different route if this results in a higher fare.
因為價格是Uber定的，所以司機對車費沒有發言權。雖然乘客和司機可以商量不走推薦的路線，從而改變車費，但實際上乘客和司機之間並沒有自由議價的空間。畢竟，如果要走更貴的路線，很難讓乘客同意。
29. The Uber app also has a disciplinary effect. After all, the drivers are given a rating via the Uber app and are therefore assessed, which may affect access to the Uber platform and the rides offered. A low average rating can result in removal from the platform, while a high average rating is an important criterion to qualify for the extra Platinum or Diamond status with Uber, which yields (financial) benefits for the driver. For example, a driver with a Platinum or Diamond status will be first to be offered the financially attractive rides from Schiphol Airport.
29. Uber應用還具有紀律約束作用。畢竟，司機透過Uber應用獲得評分，這算是對他們的一種考核，這個評分可能會影響他們繼續在Uber平臺上接單。如果司機的評分低於平均水平，可能會被平臺除名；而那些評分高的司機，有機會獲得Uber的鉑金或者鑽石等級，這對他們來說是個好事，因為這意味著能多掙錢。比如，有了鉑金或鑽石等級的司機，在史基浦機場能優先拿到那些收入比較高的單子。
30. Furthermore, at the hearing it was stated on behalf of Uber that Uber – to put it simply – can ‘control the buttons of the app’ and change the settings. This change affects the ranks to be achieved by the drivers and, in connection with this, the rides offered. As a result, the entrepreneurial freedom so argued by Uber is essentially absent.
30. 此外，在聽證會上Uber表示，簡單來說，其可以“控制應用程式”並更改設定。這些調整會直接影響到司機的評級，連帶著他們能接到的訂單也會有所變化。所以，Uber聲稱的司機自主權實際上並不存在。
（圖片來源於網路）
31. Although Uber emphasises that a driver may cancel an already accepted ride at all times, the frequent cancellation of rides will lead to exclusion from the use of the Uber app. Rejecting an offered ride three times also means that the driver is logged out of the system and therefore no longer offered rides until he is logged in again. Uber has argued that its system will not function properly if rides are repeatedly declined. Nonetheless, it is Uber that determines through the algorithm whether and when a driver is logged out and allowed to log in again.
31. 儘管Uber一直強調司機可以隨時取消已經接下的訂單，但如果司機經常取消訂單，是會被Uber軟體給“拉黑”的。如果司機連續三次拒絕接單，系統就會自動把司機的賬號登出，司機再也無法接到新訂單，其需要重新註冊才可以接單。Uber辯稱，如果司機多次拒絕行程，其系統將無法正常運作。不過，說到底，司機何時被登出賬號與重新登入賬號的權力均由Uber的演算法決定。
32. Finally, it is Uber that decides unilaterally about a possible solution in the event of customer complaints, including adjustment of the agreed fare. The driver can object to this, but the final decision rests with Uber.
32. 最後，碰到乘客投訴時，Uber會單方面決定處理方案，包括調整原本說好的車費。司機雖然可以對處理結果提出異議，但最終決定權在Uber。
（圖片來源於網路）
33. In this way, the algorithm acts as a financial incentive and has a disciplining and instructing effect. The fact that the drivers – to a certain extent – are free to refuse a ride, determine their own hours, and use different apps or other booking systems at the same time does not change this. Once they use the Uber app and are logged in for this purpose, they are subject to the operation of the algorithm designed by Uber, and are therefore subject to Uber’s ‘modern employer authority’.
33. 這樣一來，演算法既是激勵司機的經濟手段，又起到了紀律約束和指導的作用。雖然司機可以自由選擇拒絕訂單、自己決定工作時間，甚至可以同時用幾個不同的軟體或者預訂系統，但這並沒有改變根本的情況。一旦他們為了接單而開啟Uber軟體並登入，就會被Uber設計的演算法支配，從而受制於Uber的“現代僱主權力”。
conclusion
結論
34. In conclusion, it is established on the basis of the aforementioned assessment framework that the parties have only agreed ‘on paper’ that the drivers will work as independent entrepreneurs. It is possible that (some of) the drivers actually intended to do so. Given the circumstances, however, this intention must – to a great extent – be put into perspective now that it will be mainly motivated by the desire to work for Uber, the significantly stronger party in economic terms.
34. 總的來說，按照上面提到的評估標準來看，雙方只是在“名義上”同意司機作為獨立的經營者來工作。有些司機可能確實有此想法，但是，考慮到Uber在經濟地位上明顯佔優勢，以及司機希望在Uber上工作的實際需求，這種想法需要重新被考量。
As discussed above, the configurations of the system constructed by Uber means that the actual performance contains all the features of an employment contract. In that case, ’reality’ has precedence over ‘semblance’, and, in view of the mandatory nature of Dutch labour law, and to protect the weaker position of the worker, it is necessary to look beyond the phrasing chosen in the contract (also refer to ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2021:3667).
正如前面提到的，Uber構建的系統實際上具備了僱傭合同的所有特徵。在這種情況下，“實際情況”比“表面現象”更重要，而且考慮到荷蘭勞動法的強制性和保護弱勢勞動者的需求，我們有必要超越合同上的字眼（可以參考ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2021:3667這個案例）。
（圖片來源於網路）
35. The agreements between Uber and the drivers who have associated themselves in person with Uber must therefore be qualified as an employment contract as referred to in Article 610 of Book 7 of the Dutch Civil Code.
35. 因此，Uber與其合作司機之間的協議應根據荷蘭民法典第7編第610條被認定為僱傭合同。
36. It is acknowledged that this judgment can give rise to organisational problems at Uber – as it has rightly argued – and that not all drivers who have associated themselves in person with Uber wish to have an employment contract. However, this does not change the judgment.
36. 正如Uber合理主張的那樣，承認此判決可能會給其帶來組織上的問題，且並非所有與Uber合作的司機都希望擁有僱傭合同。然而，這並不改變判決結果。
Claim I: applicability of the CLA for Taxi Transport:
請求I：計程車運輸集體勞動協議的適用性：
37. The question then arises whether, as a consequence of this judgment, the CLA for Taxi Transport applies to Uber's employment relationship with inperson drivers, at least for the period during which it has been declared universally binding. The answer is that it does.
37. 隨之而來的問題是，根據這個判決，在合同被宣佈具有普遍約束力的時間段內，計程車行業的運輸集體勞動協議是否適用於Uber和合作司機之間的僱傭關係？答案是肯定的。
（圖片來源於網路）
38. After all, the CLA for Taxi Transport, which was most recently declared universally binding until 31 December 2021 (cf. the Dutch Government Gazette – Staatscourant – 2021, No. 1100), applies in accordance with Article 1.2 of said CLA ‘to companies, employers and employees of any labour organisation established in the Netherlands:
38. 畢竟，根據計程車運輸集體勞動協議（最近一次宣告普遍約束力至2021年12月31日，參見《荷蘭政府公報》 Staatscourant 2021年第1100號）的第1.2條，該協議適用於在荷蘭的任何勞動組織的公司、僱主和僱員：
who carry out the transport of persons against payment, with a passenger car, pursuant to a permit under the Passenger Transport Act 2000 (in force since 1 January 2001, Act of 6 July 2000, Dutch Bulletin of Acts and Decrees No. 314 of 2000 [‘Stb. 2000, 314’]); and/or who carry out the transport of persons for payment, with a passenger car, by road or on roads other than those open to public traffic.
根據《2000年乘客運輸法》（自2001年1月1日起生效，2000年7月6日法令，荷蘭法令公告第314號[‘Stb. 2000, 314’]），以乘用車有償運送乘客，並持有許可證；和/或使用乘用車在非公共交通道路或其他道路上進行有償運送的人員。
Furthermore, the concepts of employee and employer terms are defined as follows in Article 1.5 of the CLA:
此外，《計程車運輸集體勞動協議》第1.5條對僱員和僱主術語定義如下：
c. Employer
Any natural or legal person/entity who has one or more employees perform work in the Netherlands as referred to in Article 1.2.
d. Employee
The person who has entered into an employment contract with the employer for a definite or indefinite period of time.
c. 僱主
在荷蘭僱傭一名或多名員工從事第1.2條所指的工作的任何自然人或法人/實體。
d. 僱員
與僱主簽訂了有期限或無期限僱傭合同的人。
39. Since Uber is a legal entity that has one or more employees performing work in the Netherlands within the meaning of Article 1.2 of the CLA for Taxi Transport, it falls under the scope of said CLA. Uber must apply this to the employment contracts of the drivers, insofar as the CLA for Taxi Transport has been declared universally binding. This means that the declaratory judgment claimed by FNV under Claim I can be granted.
39. 由於Uber是一個在荷蘭擁有一名或多名員工從事《計程車運輸集體勞動協議》第1.2條所指工作的法人實體，因此該協議適用於Uber。這意味著，該協議適用於司機的僱傭合同，只要《計程車運輸集體勞動協議》被宣告具有普遍約束力。這意味著FNV在請求I下的宣告性判決請求可以被支援。
（圖片來源於網路）
42. Now that it involves an employment contract and Uber falls within the scope of the CLA for Taxi Transport, which has been declared universally binding, Uber is legally obliged to comply with the obligations towards the drivers arising from the CLA, even if the drivers do not want this. A conviction ‘purely dependent on the will’ of the employee could amount to a 'way out' that puts the effectiveness of the system of universally binding collective agreements under pressure (cf. AG Hartlief, ECLI:NL:PHR:2020:958).
42. 既然涉及到僱傭合同，且Uber屬於具有普遍約束力的《計程車運輸集體勞動協議》的適用方，哪怕司機拒絕，Uber在法律上也應當按照這個協議來對待司機。如果判決只是“完全看員工自己願不願意”，那可能會給集體協議制度的有效性帶來壓力（參見AG Hartlief，ECLI:NL:PHR:2020:958）。
Decision
判決
The subdistrict court judges:
declare that for the periods that the CLA for Taxi Transport has been (or was) declared universally binding, the employment conditions of this CLA apply to drivers who have associated themselves in person with Uber to transport people by road with a passenger car;
區法院法官判決：
宣告在《計程車運輸集體勞動協議》被宣告具有普遍約束力的期間內，該協議的僱傭條件適用於與Uber直接關聯並以乘用車運送乘客的司機；
（圖片來源於網路）
order Uber to comply in full with regard to the drivers referred to under I. for the periods that the CLA for Taxi Transport has been (or was) declared generally binding;
命令Uber在《計程車運輸集體勞動協議》被（或曾被）宣告具有普遍約束力的期間，全面遵守對I所指的司機的規定；
order Uber to pay FNV € 50,000 in damages;
命令Uber向FNV支付€50,000的賠償；
order Uber to pay the costs of the proceedings
命令Uber支付訴訟費用
原文連結：
https://www.fnv.nl/getmedia/7eba08cf-f895-40ec-81a9-3860bb7ca03e/2021-10-07-Uber-uitspraak-m-u-v-standpunten-partijen-ENG-def-docx.pdf