Contractor vs employment in Slovakia: the 2026 rules and the red line

You have a contractor "on invoices" — or you are one — and want to know where lawful cooperation ends and illegal employment begins. From 1 January 2026 the rules got noticeably tougher: the definition of dependent work became shorter, and the fines doubled. We break down what exactly the labour inspectorate checks, what makes a contractor genuinely independent, and how to restructure the cooperation if you truly need it. Every rule comes with its paragraph.

In short

• Work that is dependent in substance fits only an employment contract or a work agreement — a contractor agreement cannot cover it (§1 par. 2–3 ZP).
• From 1 January 2026 the "working time set by the employer" element is gone from the law: a free schedule no longer proves anything by itself.
• The fine for illegal employment runs from €4,000 to €200,000; two or more people — at least €8,000 (§19 par. 2 of Act No. 125/2006 Coll.).
• The inspectorate judges practice, not contract wording. The riskiest setup: a contractor with a single client who is their former employer.
• A genuine contractor has several clients, their own tools, result-based pay and the right to say no.

The heart of the matter

Some work cannot be done under a contractor agreement. The law calls it dependent work (závislá práca): the person is subordinate and works personally, under instructions and in the employer's name. Such work belongs only in an employment-law relationship — an employment contract or a dohoda (§1 par. 2–3 ZP).

When someone works like an employee in practice but is set up as a contractor with invoices, that is the so-called švarcsystém — invoice-based employment. To the inspectors it is no grey area: it is illegal employment with a fine starting at €4,000 (§19 par. 2 of Act No. 125/2006 Coll.).

The reverse is also true: genuine entrepreneurship is not banned. The problem never comes from the form of the contract — it comes from what the relationship looks like in practice.

What changed in 2026

Until 2026 dependent work had five defining elements, one of them "performed in working time set by the employer". From 1 January 2026 that element is gone. Four remain, and they must all apply together (§1 par. 2 ZP):

1. a relationship of superiority and subordination;
2. the work is performed personally;
3. under the employer's instructions;
4. in the employer's name.

The main defence used to be: "the contractor has a free schedule and comes when he wants — the working-time element is missing, so the work is not dependent." That argument no longer works: a flexible schedule and remote work stopped proving independence on their own.

The fines rose at the same time. The minimum went from €2,000 to €4,000, and with two or more people illegally employed at once, it starts at €8,000. The ceiling stays at €200,000 (§19 par. 2 of Act No. 125/2006 Coll.). And the fine is mandatory: the law says the inspectorate "shall impose" it — the only choice is the amount.

What the inspectorate looks at

They judge the facts on the ground, not the contract text. The red flags:

Relationship:

• a fixed schedule, presence required at set hours;
• working-time records kept for a contractor;
• routines like "asked for leave", "excused an absence", "took a holiday";
• reporting to a line manager, day-to-day decisions needing approval.

Money:

• the same amount every month;
• the words "salary" and "supplements" instead of "fee";
• pay for hours worked rather than for results.

Conditions:

• work happens only on the client's premises;
• the client's equipment with no rental agreement;
• corporate e-mail, business cards, a uniform;
• full integration into the team alongside employees.

Economics:

• a single client — long-term and exclusive;
• the same work as colleagues on employment contracts;
• no way to bring in a substitute or subcontractor.

The riskiest setup is a contractor whose only client is their former employer. The inspectorate holds ready-made evidence: the old employment contract describing the same duties.

What makes a contractor genuine

The principle is simple: tidy wording alone saves no one. When practice contradicts the contract, the polished text becomes an aggravating factor — it shows the parties knew about the problem and dressed it up.

What the courts say

There is plenty of case law, and it is consistent. We do not cite individual case numbers here, so we give the conclusions in our own words.

Substance beats form. Courts judge a contract by what actually happens, not by the title on page one. In a well-known case a company hired four people on "contracts for work" at €100 each for digging jobs — and collected an €8,000 fine.

A contract for work bearing the elements of dependent work is void in its entirety. It is not "reclassified" — it is invalid from the start, because it circumvents the law.

The decisive element is subordination. The elements are not equal: courts put this one first, time and again.

An empty contract works against you. The tactic of "let's fix neither the fee nor the hours, so there is no evidence" backfires: courts read unagreed pay and hours as circumventing the law, not as a missing element.

The worker is the weaker party. The employer's position is always stronger, so doubtful points are not resolved in the company's favour.

Liability is objective. "We didn't know" and "the worker asked for it himself" do not work — the law has no exculpating grounds.

But the inspectorate carries the burden of proof, and the bar is high. A finding of illegal employment must be proven beyond any doubt; where doubt remains, the presumption favours the inspected party. There are cases the inspectorate lost precisely because it proved not a single element.

No double punishment. If the Social Insurance Agency has already fined the company over an unregistered worker, the labour inspectorate cannot punish the same thing again.

Two more situations from practice: "trial work" and an "internship" with a promise of future employment are a classic disguise for illegal work. Repeated contracts for work, by contrast, do not create an employment relationship by themselves — as long as they genuinely are contracts for work.

What is at stake

For the client company:

• a fine of €4,000 to €200,000, from €8,000 with two or more people (§19 par. 2 of Act No. 125/2006 Coll.);
• all social contributions assessed retroactively, plus penalties;
• payments reclassified from "services" into wages — with back taxes and penalty interest;
• the public register of offenders kept by the inspectorate (Act No. 82/2005 Coll.) — banks and business partners check it;
• retroactive employment claims from the worker: leave, severance, supplements.

One small mercy: pay two thirds of the fine within 15 days of the decision becoming final, and the fine counts as paid in full (§19 par. 7 of Act No. 125/2006 Coll.).

For the contractor: the inspectorate's fine is symbolic — up to €331 (Act No. 82/2005 Coll.). The real consequences lie elsewhere: the relationship gets converted into employment and the taxes recalculated — the 60 % flat expense allowance cannot apply to wages, so tax may be assessed for the audited periods. What a genuine contractor pays — check the SZČO calculator.

Limitation periods: fine proceedings may start within six months of the inspection ending, and no later than three years from the day of the breach (§19 par. 4 of Act No. 125/2006 Coll.).

The family exception. Work done by a close relative — direct line, sibling, spouse — is not illegal if that relative has pension insurance, draws a pension, or is a pupil or student under 26. It works for a sole trader and for a family s.r.o. with at most two related shareholders (§2 par. 1–2 of Act No. 82/2005 Coll.).

A separate case: the supplier is a company, not a contractor

The picture changes here. By definition, only a natural person can work illegally; an s.r.o. can be the party that illegally employs, but not the one that illegally works. A contract with an s.r.o. therefore does not fall under this offence directly.

The risk does not vanish — it moves to another rule: hidden staff leasing (§58 par. 2 ZP). If the supplier formally provides services but three conditions hold at once, the law treats it as leasing an employee — whatever the contract is called:

1. the client itself assigns the worker's tasks, organises, directs and controls the work;
2. the work happens mostly on the client's premises and with its tools — or on its equipment;
3. the activity falls within the client's own scope of business.

Three details. The conditions are cumulative — all three are needed. The presumption is rebuttable — but the supplier does the rebutting. And the second condition is internally alternative: working on the client's equipment — say, remote access to its server — triggers it even with no one sitting in the office.

The consequences: a fine of €5,000 to €100,000 for operating a temp agency without a licence (Act No. 5/2004 Coll.), and if the leasing limits are breached — an open-ended employment relationship that springs up directly with the client (§58 par. 7 ZP).

The limit of this construct: the rule speaks of work done by the supplier's employee. If the supplier has no employees and the managing director does everything personally, there is no one to "lease" — the presumption never fires.

If you genuinely need the contractor setup

Steps in order of decreasing impact:

1. Get the contractor real additional clients. Economic independence outweighs everything else.
2. Rewrite the contract around results — concrete deliverables with acceptance criteria. Not "provision of accounting services" but a list of what gets delivered.
3. Change the actual nature of the work: project logic instead of daily routine; a different subject from the old employment contract, if there was one.
4. Sort out the means of production: own equipment — say so; the client's — set up a rental or record the reason (licences, data protection).
5. Change the payment pattern: invoices by actual volumes, not one figure every month.
6. Remove everything that looks like employment: attendance records, "holidays", corporate perks, reporting to a manager.
7. Put the right to subcontract into the contract — and do not stand in its way.
8. Add liability insurance and a warranty for the work.

One last thing. If someone works for you under an employment contract and you are thinking of flipping them to contractor status with the same work — don't. It is the most recognisable setup of all: courts have already voided dismissals where people were given the choice of "contractor or the door". To weigh the form of work as a whole, see the SZČO vs. s.r.o. comparison.