A security guard performed activities for a security company on a self-employed basis from 1 January 2007 till 31 December 2008. After his contract was terminated, the security guard claimed that in reality he was subordinated to the security company and therefore his service contract should be reclassified as an employment contract. The security guard argued that the security company could impose disciplinary sanctions provided in its work rules, and that this power was incompatible with a self-employment contract. In first instance, the Labour Court indeed found such power incompatible with a self-employment contract. The Labour Court of Appeal of Antwerp subsequently reversed the judgment considering that the security guard had not substantiated any incompatible element with a self-employment contract. However, on 10 October 2016, the Court of Cassation overruled the judgment of the Labour Court of Appeal. The Court of Cassation ruled that the fact that one of the parties in an employment relationship has the right to impose disciplinary sanctions to the other party, excludes the possibility of self-employment, except when such disciplinary right is inherent to the profession and imposed by (virtue of) law. As this was not the case in the case at hand, the judgment of the Labour Court of Appeal was overruled.