Can a temporary agency worker remain at the same client company for thirteen years without ever being offered a permanent contract? That is the question currently before the Dutch Supreme Court. And it’s significant: this marks the first time the Court will rule on the limits of long-term agency work in light of the European Temporary Agency Work Directive.
On 21 March 2025, Advocate General De Bock issued her opinion. Her conclusion is clear: the employer’s need for a “flexible workforce” is not enough to justify thirteen years of continuous agency work. According to her, this constitutes abuse of the temporary work arrangement. The Court of Appeal, which previously found this practice acceptable, is sharply criticised in her advice.
The case in brief
The worker in this case was assigned to the same company for nearly thirteen years, via three different employment agencies. Throughout that time, he repeatedly requested a permanent contract, which was consistently denied. When the factory eventually closed, he took the matter to court, seeking a declaration that he had effectively been an employee of the client company all along.
The lower courts denied his claim. The Court of Appeal ruled that there was no abuse, citing the company’s need for flexibility as a legitimate reason for the long-term use of a temporary worker.
What does the Advocate General say?
The Advocate General argues that the Court of Appeal was too quick to accept long-term temporary assignments without offering a permanent role. She states this contradicts the Temporary Agency Work Directive, which explicitly requires that agency work be temporary in nature. Temporariness is not a formality — it is a core principle of the system.
She refers to key judgments from the Court of Justice of the EU (notably JH/KG and Daimler), which emphasise that Member States are obligated to prevent abuse of agency work arrangements. Judges must assess whether an assignment remains genuinely temporary, especially when it spans many years. If it no longer is — and there is no objective justification — the arrangement may be abusive.
Thirteen years of agency work? According to the AG, that can no longer be considered temporary. A general desire for flexibility is not a sufficient reason. Many sectors require flexibility, but that does not justify permanently excluding workers from the protections of permanent employment.
This is a wake-up call for employers, agency workers, and temporary employment agencies.
For employers: Now is the time to carefully review the length and structure of temporary assignments. If the work is structural in nature, a permanent employment contract should eventually follow — even if Dutch law does not impose a strict maximum duration.
For agency workers: Long-term uncertainty is not something you simply have to accept. If you’ve worked for the same company via a temporary agency for years without a permanent role, this could breach your rights under EU law.
For employment agencies: You share responsibility. If the structure you facilitate is found to circumvent the Directive, you too may be held accountable.
What’s next?
The Dutch Supreme Court will issue its ruling on 26 September 2025. If it follows the AG’s advice, the case will need to be re-evaluated — and courts across the Netherlands may be required to scrutinise long-term agency arrangements much more closely.
Perhaps even more importantly, it reinforces that even in the absence of a national statutory time limit, European labour law still offers real protection against prolonged precarious employment.
Need guidance on long-term hiring, temporary agency work, or employment structures?
Employment relationships are under increasing scrutiny — especially in the context of flexible work. Employers, employees and staffing agencies should regularly assess whether their agreements comply with current regulations.
Edith Nordmann, Managing Partner at ACG International, is a leading employment law expert and an experienced corporate and commercial litigator. With a strong international focus and in-depth legal insight, she advises clients on what is legally permissible — and where the risks lie.
Want clarity on your employment structure?
Get in touch for a first legal consultation.
