Individual Training Leave (CIF): The Training Center Is Not a Second Employer (French Supreme Court, Dec. 10, 2025, No. 24-10.205)

A training center cannot be classified as an employer during a CIF

In a ruling dated December 10, 2025 (No. 24-10.205), the Labour Chamber of the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) provides an important clarification on the legal status of a training center hosting an employee under an individual training leave (congé individuel de formation, or “CIF”). The Court holds that the person in charge of the training center is not an “other employer” within the meaning of Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code for the duration of the CIF.

This decision is relevant to both employers and training organizations, as it clearly delineates each party’s responsibilities during the training period. DAIRIA Avocats analyzes this ruling and its practical implications.

The facts: an employee on CIF injured at the training center

An employee takes an individual training leave (CIF) at a training center. During this period, the employment contract binding the employee to their original employer is suspended, in accordance with the legal provisions governing the CIF.

Unfortunately, the employee is injured while on the training center’s premises. Following this accident, the employee seeks to hold the training center liable by invoking the provisions of Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code, which governs the situation where an employee suffers a workplace accident while being made available to an “other employer.”

The employee argues that the training center, by hosting them and supervising their training, exercises the prerogatives of an employer toward them and must be classified as such within the meaning of the Labour Code.

The Court of Appeal partially accepts this argument and holds the training center liable as an “other employer.”

The legal issue: is the training center an employer within the meaning of the Labour Code?

The question submitted to the Supreme Court is the following: can the person in charge of a training center hosting an employee under an individual training leave be classified as an “other employer” within the meaning of Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code?

Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code establishes a specific regime where an employee who suffers a workplace accident was made available to another employer at the time of the accident. This provision organizes the tripartite relationship between the employee, their original employer, and the user employer.

For this provision to apply, the existence of a relationship of subordination between the employee and the third party to whom they were entrusted must be established. This is precisely the classification at stake: does the training center exercise a power of direction, control, and discipline over the employee in training, which characterizes a relationship of subordination?

The CIF—which has since become the professional transition project (projet de transition professionnelle, or “PTP”)—is a scheme allowing an employee to take leave from their position to attend training of their choice. During this period, the employment contract is suspended but not terminated. The employee remains bound to their original employer, and the training center provides a teaching service.

The ruling: rejection — the training center is not an employer

The Supreme Court rejects the appeal and overturns the Court of Appeal’s decision. It sets out the following principle: the person in charge of the training center is not an “other employer” within the meaning of Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code for the duration of the individual training leave. The employment contract remains suspended with the original employer, and the training center does not exercise the prerogatives of an employer toward the employee in training.

The Court bases its decision on several factors:

Absence of a relationship of subordination: the training center provides instruction to the employee but does not exercise over them a power of direction, control, and discipline characteristic of an employment contract;
Nature of the relationship: the relationship between the training center and the employee on CIF is pedagogical in nature, not employment-related. The center has no power to impose disciplinary sanctions on the employee;
Continuation of the contractual link with the original employer: during the CIF, the employment contract is merely suspended. The employee retains their status as an employee of the original company, and it is this relationship that structures their rights and obligations;
Inapplicability of Article L.1226-6: this provision covers situations where an employee is made available to another employer, which presupposes a transfer of authority. The CIF does not effect such a transfer.

Context: the distinction between a training service and an employment relationship

This decision is part of the Supreme Court’s established case law, which carefully distinguishes the provision of training from the employment relationship. The training center is a provider of teaching services, not an employer.

Classification as an employer requires the presence of three classic criteria established by case law: the power to give orders and directives, the power to monitor their execution, and the power to sanction breaches (French Supreme Court, Labour Chamber, November 13, 1996, No. 94-13.187, the Société Générale ruling). While the training center may certainly impose class schedules, require attendance, and assess acquired skills, these prerogatives fall within pedagogical supervision and not the employer’s power of direction.

It should be recalled that the individual training leave has been replaced by the professional transition project (PTP) since January 1, 2019 (Order No. 2019-861 of August 21, 2019). However, the solution reached by the Supreme Court in this ruling is fully applicable to the PTP, whose legal mechanism is similar: suspension of the employment contract and training with an external organization.

This decision also helps clarify the liability regimes in the event of an accident occurring at a training center. An employee injured in this context benefits from workplace-accident legislation (the accident having occurred by reason of or in connection with the training, which is itself linked to the employment contract), but it is the original employer who remains liable for the related obligations.

Relevance for employers: clarifying responsibilities during the CIF/PTP

This ruling is of twofold interest for employers and training centers.

For the original employer

The employer remains the sole holder of the employment contract during the CIF or PTP period. This status entails several consequences:

Continuation of contractual liability: the employer remains liable under the employment contract, including in the event of an accident occurring during the training;
Reinstatement obligation: at the end of the training, the employer must reinstate the employee in their position or an equivalent position;
Managing the workplace accident: if the accident occurring at the training center is classified as a workplace accident, it is the original employer who must file the accident declaration and manage its aftermath.

For the training center

The training center is not bound by the obligations of an employer toward the employee on CIF/PTP. In particular, it does not have:

The obligation to seek reassignment in the event of unfitness for work;
The obligation to pay severance indemnities;
The obligations relating to the workplace-accident regime (continued pay, supplementary indemnities).

However, the training center remains bound by a general safety obligation under its ordinary civil liability. It must ensure the safety of persons hosted on its premises, in accordance with general liability rules.

DAIRIA Avocats’ recommendations

The DAIRIA Avocats team recommends that employers:

Properly inform the employee of their legal status during the CIF/PTP: their employer remains the original company, and it is to that company they must turn in the event of difficulty;
Verify the training center’s insurance: even though it is not the employer, the center must hold civil liability insurance covering accidents occurring on its premises;
Include clear contractual clauses in the tripartite training agreement, defining the respective responsibilities of the employer and the training center;
Declare any accident occurring during the training as a potential workplace accident, within the 48-hour period provided by Article L.441-2 of the French Social Security Code.

FAQ: frequently asked questions on the status of the training center during a CIF/PTP

Does the training center have disciplinary power over the employee on CIF?

No. The training center may impose pedagogical rules (attendance, compliance with the establishment’s internal regulations), but it does not hold disciplinary power within the meaning of labour law. Only the original employer may exercise this power, within the limits set by the suspension of the contract.

Who is liable if the employee is injured at the training center?

The original employer remains the primary party liable under workplace-accident legislation. However, the training center’s ordinary civil liability may be engaged if fault on its part is established (failure to maintain premises, non-compliance with safety standards, etc.).

Can an employee on CIF invoke Article L.1226-6 against the training center?

No. As confirmed by the ruling of December 10, 2025, the training center is not an “other employer” within the meaning of this article. The employee therefore cannot rely on the protective provisions relating to being made available to a user employer.

Is this solution applicable to the professional transition project (PTP)?

Yes. Since the PTP has replaced the CIF with a similar legal mechanism (suspension of the contract and external training), the solution reached by the Supreme Court is fully applicable. A training center hosting an employee on PTP is not their employer.

Can the employer refuse to declare an accident occurring at the training center?

No. The employer is required to declare any accident of which it is aware that occurred by reason of or in connection with the work, including during a training period. Failure to declare exposes the employer to sanctions and to bearing the financial consequences of the accident.

This article is a legal commentary prepared by the DAIRIA Avocats team, a firm specializing in employment law. It does not constitute personalized legal advice. For any individual situation, we invite you to consult a lawyer.