CSE Alert Right: Invalid for Former Employees

By DAIRIA Avocats | Employment Law | Case Commentary

The Court of Cassation, social chamber, in a ruling dated March 18, 2026 (n° 24-15.990), specified a crucial condition for the admissibility of the alert right exercised by a member of the CSE (comité social et économique, Economic and Social Committee) in cases of violation of individual rights: the employee concerned must be part of the company’s workforce at the time the judge is seized. This decision clarifies the contours and temporal limits of this protective mechanism.

Facts of the Case

A member of the CSE of a company exercised their alert right pursuant to Article L. 2312-59 of the French Labour Code. This provision allows any CSE member who observes, notably through an employee, that there is a violation of individual rights, physical and mental health, or personal freedoms within the company that is not justified by the nature of the task or proportionate to the intended objective, to immediately inform the employer.

In this instance, the elected CSE member had exercised this alert citing a violation of rights of a specifically identified employee. The member then alerted the employer, who did not conduct an investigation or remedy the situation, prompting the member to take the matter to the labor court’s summary proceedings, according to the procedure provided by the statute.

However, between the time the alert was made and the time the judge was seized, the concerned employee had left the company. Their employment contract was terminated, regardless of the cause, and they no longer fell within the workforce at the time the court was seized.

Nonetheless, the court of appeal found the alert right to be admissible, asserting that the identified violation of rights at the time of the alert sufficed to establish the judge’s jurisdiction, irrespective of the subsequent absence of the employee from the company.

Legal Issue Raised

The question submitted to the Court of Cassation was: Can the CSE member exercising the alert right as provided in Article L. 2312-59 of the Labour Code invoke a violation of rights for an employee who is no longer part of the company’s workforce at the time the judge is seized?

This question raised a fundamental issue regarding the purpose of the alert right. Is this mechanism aimed at sanctioning a past violation, or is it intended to stop a current violation? The answer to this question determined the admissibility of the action taken by the CSE member.

Court of Cassation’s Ruling

The Court of Cassation overturned the court of appeal’s ruling and established a clear rule. It held that the CSE member exercising the alert right under Article L. 2312-59 of the Labour Code cannot invoke a violation of rights for an employee who is no longer part of the company’s workforce at the time the judge is seized.

The higher court founded its decision on the very purpose of the alert right. This mechanism aims to put an end to an ongoing violation of an employee’s rights. It is a preventive and corrective device, not a mechanism for sanction or post facto remedy. Therefore, when the employee has left the company, the violation of their rights in the context of the employment relationship has, by definition, ceased.

The Court reminded that the judge seized in the context of the alert right rules in summary proceedings and can order