French Labour Law

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

DAIRIA Law · 2026-09-15 · 8 min

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

A Training Centre Cannot Be Classified as an Employer During a CIF

In a ruling dated 10 December 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 centre 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 centre is not a “second employer” within the meaning of Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code during the CIF period.

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

The Facts: An Employee on CIF Injured at the Training Centre

An employee benefits from an individual training leave (CIF) at a training centre. During this period, the employment contract binding the employee to his original employer is suspended, in accordance with the statutory provisions governing the CIF.

Unfortunately, the employee is injured in an accident while on the premises of the training centre. Following this accident, he seeks to establish the training centre’s liability, invoking the provisions of Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code, which governs situations in which an employee suffers a work-related accident while being made available to a “second employer”.

The employee argues that the training centre, by hosting him and supervising his training, exercises employer-type prerogatives over him and must therefore be classified as an employer within the meaning of the Labour Code.

The Court of Appeal partially accepted this argument and held the training centre liable as a “second employer”.

The question put to the Supreme Court was as follows: can the person in charge of a training centre hosting an employee under an individual training leave be classified as a “second employer” within the meaning of Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code?

Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code provides for a specific regime where an employee who suffers a work-related accident was being made available to a second employer at the time of the accident. This provision organises the tripartite relationship between the employee, the original employer and the user employer.

For this provision to apply, a relationship of subordination must be established between the employee and the third party to whom the employee has been entrusted. It is precisely this classification that is in dispute: does the training centre exercise a power of direction, control and sanction over the employee in training, which characterises a relationship of subordination?

The CIF, which has since become the professional transition scheme (“projet de transition professionnelle”, or PTP), is a mechanism allowing an employee to take time off from their position to follow a training course of their choice. During this period, the employment contract is suspended but not terminated. The employee remains bound to the original employer, and the training centre provides an educational service.

The Ruling: Dismissal — The Training Centre Is Not an Employer

The Supreme Court dismisses the employee’s arguments and overturns the Court of Appeal’s decision. It sets out the following principle: the person in charge of the training centre is not a “second employer” within the meaning of Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code during the individual training leave. The employment contract remains suspended with the original employer, and the training centre does not exercise employer prerogatives over the employee in training.

The Court based its decision on several elements:

  • Absence of a relationship of subordination: the training centre provides instruction to the employee but does not exercise over them a power of direction, control and sanction characteristic of an employment contract;
  • Nature of the relationship: the relationship between the training centre and the employee on CIF is educational in nature and not employment-related. The centre has no power to impose disciplinary sanctions on the employee;
  • Continuation of the contractual relationship 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 a second employer, which presupposes a transfer of authority. However, the CIF does not effect such a transfer.

The Context: Distinguishing Between a Training Service and an Employment Relationship

This decision is consistent with the settled case law of the Supreme Court, which carefully distinguishes between the provision of training and the employment relationship. The training centre is a provider of educational services, not an employer.

Classification as an employer requires the combination of three classic criteria established by case law: the power to give orders and instructions, the power to control their performance and the power to sanction breaches (French Supreme Court, 13 November 1996, No. 94-13.187, Société Générale ruling). While the training centre may indeed impose course schedules, require attendance at classes and assess the skills acquired, these prerogatives fall within educational supervision and not the employer’s power of direction.

It should be recalled that the individual training leave was replaced by the professional transition scheme (PTP) as of 1 January 2019 (Ordinance No. 2019-861 of 21 August 2019). However, the solution set out by the Supreme Court in this ruling is fully transposable to the PTP, the legal mechanism of which is similar: suspension of the employment contract and training with an external organisation.

This decision also clarifies the liability regimes in the event of an accident occurring at a training centre. An employee injured in this context benefits from the legislation on work-related accidents (the accident having occurred through 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.

Why This Matters for Employers: Clarifying Responsibilities During the CIF/PTP

This ruling is of twofold interest to employers and training centres.

For the Original Employer

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

  • Continued contractual liability: the employer remains liable under the employment contract, including in the event of an accident occurring during the training;
  • Obligation to reinstate: at the end of the training, the employer must reinstate the employee in their position or an equivalent position;
  • Management of the work-related accident: if an accident occurring at the training centre is classified as a work-related accident, it is the original employer who must file the accident declaration and manage its consequences.

For the Training Centre

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

  • The obligation to seek redeployment in the event of unfitness;
  • The obligation to pay severance indemnities;
  • The obligations relating to the work-related accident regime (salary maintenance, supplementary indemnities).

However, the training centre 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:

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

FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions on the Status of the Training Centre During a CIF/PTP

Does the training centre have disciplinary authority over the employee on CIF?

No. The training centre may impose educational rules (attendance, compliance with the establishment’s internal regulations), but it does not have disciplinary authority within the meaning of employment law. Only the original employer may exercise this authority, within the limits set by the suspension of the contract.

Who is liable in the event of an employee’s accident at the training centre?

The original employer remains primarily liable under the legislation on work-related accidents. However, the training centre may incur its ordinary civil liability 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 centre?

No. As confirmed by the ruling of 10 December 2025, the training centre is not a “second 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 transposable to the professional transition scheme (PTP)?

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

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

No. The employer is required to declare any accident of which it is aware and which occurred through or in connection with 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 drafted by the team at DAIRIA Avocats, a firm specialising in employment law. It does not constitute personalised legal advice. For any individual situation, we invite you to consult a lawyer.

← All insights