Effective January 1, 2026, the definition of employment will change. Find out what this means for working with self-employed individuals, what the risks of reclassification are, and how to properly structure B2B relationships.
As of January 1, 2026, the definition of dependent employment in Section 1(2) of the Labor Code has changed. At first glance, this appears to be a minor legislative amendment; in practice, however, it may have a significant impact on how collaborations with self-employed individuals and other external contractors are assessed. For both employers and service purchasers, this means that the formal contractual arrangement of the relationship alone is not sufficient, andwhat is decisive is its actual substance and how it functions in practice.
What is changing as of January 1, 2026
Until the end of 2025, dependent employment was typically associated with five characteristics:
- supervision by the employer and subordination of the employee,
- personal performance of work,
- performance in accordance with the employer’s instructions,
- performance on behalf of the employer, and
- performance during working hours determined by the employer.
As of January 1, 2026, the last characteristic is removed. The definition now retains four defining characteristics:
- the employer’s authority and the employee’s subordination,
- personal performance of work,
- performance in accordance with the employer’s instructions,
- and performance on behalf of the employer.
This change is not accidental. As labor relations and their conditions evolve, situations are increasingly arising where employees can determine their own working hours. Typical examples include domestic work, telecommuting, and flexible working hours. Court rulings have already established in the past that the individual defining characteristics of dependent work do not carry equal legal weight. An example is the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic dated March 28, 2018, Case No. 5Asan/7/2017, which stated that “when assessing the characteristics of dependent work, different weight may be given to different characteristics, while the primary characteristic is superiority and subordination.” Although the characteristics of dependent employment must be cumulatively met, due to practice and labor market developments, the defining characteristic “during working hours determined by the employer” has gradually lost its significance and ceased to fulfill its identifying function when assessing whether illegal employment is actually occurring in a specific case.
Why the amendment increases the risk of reclassifying B2B relationships
The greatest practical impact of the amendment lies in the fact that it has narrowed the scope for formally structured B2B relationships, which until now sought to distinguish themselves from an employment relationship primarily by the fact that the contractor “did not have set working hours.” However, if a person works in person, according to instructions, in a relationship of de facto superiority and subordination, and acts on behalf of the company, the removal of the time-related criterion means that there is now less room to formally mask the reality of an employment relationship with a commercial contract.
The actual substance of the contractual relationship has been key in assessments to date, but this legislative change will simplify the possibility of reclassifying a business relationship as an employment relationship by the labor inspectorate. The possibility of reclassifying the relationship rests primarily on the actual substance of the cooperation. This means that supervisory authorities and courts assess the substantive reality, not the formal terms of the contract alone. In other words, if a contract designates the relationship as a supplier relationship, but the person in question is in fact integrated into the company’s internal organizational structure and performs work under the direction of its management, there is a significant risk that the legal relationship will be assessed as “fictitious business,” which carries the risk of a fine being imposed by the Labor Inspectorate, as well as other negative consequences not only for the violating entity but, in some cases, also for its clients.
Labor Inspection: Stricter Penalty Regime and Enhanced Enforcement
The amendment also introduced stricter penalties for violations of the prohibition on illegal employment. The National Labor Inspectorate states that as of January 1, 2026, the fine ranges from 4,000 euros to 200,000 euros; in cases involving the illegal employment of two or more individuals simultaneously, the lower limit is 8,000 euros. Previously, the fines were €2,000 and €5,000, respectively.
At the same time, a rule is being introduced whereby if two-thirds of the fine is paid within 15 days of the decision becoming final, the fine is considered paid in full.
Even more importantly, however, the state is also announcing more intensive enforcement of inspections. According to official information from the Labor Inspectorate, a special nationwide campaign was carried out in February 2026, involving nearly 100 inspectors, with inspections also targeting fictitious sole proprietors. The Minister of Labor also announced that similar campaigns are to be repeated regularly, with the next one to be carried out in cooperation with the police. At the same time, legislative changes were announced to make inspections more effective.
Dependent employment vs. “fictitious self-employment”: where are the most common warning signs
In B2B relationships, the risk is not usually concentrated in a single factor. It is a combination of factors that matters. Among the most common are operational management of work by the client, tight integration into the team and company structure, personal performance without a realistic possibility of substitution, representing the company externally, regular remuneration similar to a salary, economic dependence on a single client, exclusivity, and others. The same risk arises, for example, when a contractor uses a company email address, holds an internal position, works at “their own” workstation on the client’s premises, and operates in a manner similar to an employee.
This is precisely why seemingly simple questions are often decisive during an inspection: who assigns tasks, who accepts the work, can the contractor be replaced, can they refuse an order, who approves absences, and how is compensation determined. It is precisely these questions that help inspectors distinguish genuine business activity from the actual performance of dependent work.
The individual characteristics and conditions of cooperation mentioned above indicate the extent to which the legal characteristics of dependent work, listed above, are or are not present.
The key lies in the procedural and organizational setup
The most common mistake is expecting that a precisely drafted contract will resolve potential risks. It will not. A contract is important, but only if it accurately reflects reality. If it states that the contractor is autonomous, but in reality they receive a daily task list, must attend internal meetings, are tracked in the attendance log, and cannot refuse an assignment, must report planned absences from work in advance, then a contract that contradicts this reality is insufficient—on the contrary, it may serve as a formal cover-up of the actual situation. In legal terms, this situation is referred to as a simulated legal act.
For employers, it is crucial in this regard that the legal assessment cannot be separated from the procedural and organizational framework of the collaboration. The question, therefore, is not just “what is in the contract,” but also “how do we assign work, how do we accept it, who bears the risk, and how does the supplier present itself externally.”Only the answers to these questions will reveal whether this is genuine business activity or a hidden employment relationship.
How to structure a supplier relationship to reflect a genuine business arrangement
If B2B collaboration is to have a genuine business character, the scope of work should be defined in terms of results: through deliverables, acceptance criteria, and acceptance of the result. The client should specify what is needed and by when, not the day-to-day workflow. Invoicing should reflect the delivered result or milestone, and we do not recommend copying a salary for a “month worked”. The business model should also include the supplier’s liability for defects and damages, appropriate autonomy in organizing work, and, if the nature of the activity allows, substitution or subcontracting.
