When the contract says freelance but daily work says something else

A contract records what the parties intended, but classification does not stop at the heading “independent contractor.” German status analysis considers the overall circumstances, especially how obligations are performed.

Clauses need factual counterparts

Suppose an agreement says the contractor can choose working time freely. If a manager nevertheless assigns a daily shift, records attendance and requires permission for absence, the practical evidence points in another direction.

The same test applies to substitution. A right to appoint another qualified person may support independence when it is commercially real. It carries less weight when the client selected the individual for personal service, prohibits any substitute in practice, or has never established how substitution could occur.

Project language is not enough

Calling ordinary ongoing duties a “project” does not create a defined commission. Look for an identifiable result, start and finish points, responsibility for delivery, acceptance criteria and freedom to organise the route to that result.

An open-ended role inside a client’s ordinary hierarchy can indicate integration. Yet duration alone is not decisive: a genuinely independent commission may be long, and a short arrangement may still be dependent.

Build a two-column record

For each important clause, write down:

1. what the agreement permits or requires;
2. one recent example of what happened in practice.

Include task allocation, location, hours, fees, equipment, rework, team meetings, other clients and ability to refuse work. Contradictions are not details to hide; they are the points that need analysis.

Changes must be genuine

Rewriting a clause without changing employer-like conduct creates false comfort. If the parties want an independent engagement, the commissioned result, responsibility boundaries and working autonomy need to exist operationally. Changes should also be suitable for the occupation and lawful needs of the client.

A factual review is therefore more useful than a search for supposedly safe wording. It shows whether contract and reality describe the same relationship—and where specialist advice may be needed.