Individual Training Leave in France: The Training Centre Is Not a Second Employer (Cass. soc., 10 December 2025, No. 24-10.205)

A training centre cannot be classified as an employer during individual training leave (CIF)

In a ruling dated 10 December 2025 (No. 24-10.205), the Social Chamber of the French Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) provides 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 an “other employer” within the meaning of Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code during the CIF period.

This decision is of interest to employers and training organisations alike, as it clearly delineates the respective responsibilities of each party 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 took an individual training leave (CIF) with a training centre. During this period, the employment contract binding the employee to their original employer was suspended, in accordance with the statutory provisions governing the CIF.

Unfortunately, the employee was injured in an accident while on the training centre’s premises. Following this accident, the employee sought to establish the liability of the training centre by relying on Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code, which governs situations where an employee suffers a workplace accident while made available to an “other employer”.

The employee argued that the training centre, by hosting them and supervising their training, exercised employer-type prerogatives over them and should 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 an “other employer”.

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

The question put to the Cour de cassation was as follows: can the person in charge of a training centre 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 Labour Code provides for a specific regime where an employee, injured in a workplace accident, was made available to another 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 (lien de subordination — a relationship of legal subordination characteristic of an employment contract) must be established between the employee and the third party to whom the employee was entrusted. It is precisely this classification that was in dispute: does the training centre exercise the power of direction, supervision and sanction over the trainee employee that characterises a relationship of subordination?

The CIF, since replaced by the professional transition project (projet de transition professionnelle, or PTP), is a scheme allowing an employee to be absent from their position in order to undertake 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 centre provides an educational service.

The ruling: the training centre is not an employer

The Cour de cassation quashed the Court of Appeal’s decision. It laid down the following principle: the person in charge of the training centre is not an “other 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 trainee employee.

The Court based its decision on several elements:

No relationship of subordination: the training centre provides instruction to the employee but does not exercise over them the power of direction, supervision 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, not employment-related. The centre does not have the 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 of making an employee available to another employer, which presupposes a transfer of authority. The CIF, however, does not effect any such transfer.

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

This decision falls within the settled case law of the Cour de cassation, which carefully distinguishes the provision of training from the employment relationship. The training centre is a provider of educational services, not an employer.

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

It should be recalled that the individual training leave was replaced by the professional transition project (PTP) as of 1 January 2019 (Ordinance No. 2019-861 of 21 August 2019). Nevertheless, the solution reached by the Cour de cassation in this ruling is fully transposable to the PTP, whose legal mechanism 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 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 the party bound by the related obligations.

Practical implications for employers: clarified responsibilities during the CIF/PTP

This ruling is of dual 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 carries several consequences:

Continuing 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 centre is classified as a workplace 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 (inaptitude);
The obligation to pay severance indemnities;
The obligations linked to the workplace accident regime (continued salary payment, supplementary indemnities).

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

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 this company that they must turn in the event of any difficulty;
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;
Provide for clear contractual clauses in the tripartite training agreement, defining the respective responsibilities of the employer and the training centre;
Declare any accident occurring during training as a potential workplace accident, within the 48-hour deadline 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 imposed by the suspension of the contract.

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

The original employer remains primarily liable under workplace accident legislation. However, the training centre may incur ordinary civil liability if fault on its part is established (failure to maintain the premises, non-compliance with safety standards, etc.).

Can the employee on CIF rely on Article L.1226-6 against the training centre?

No. As confirmed by the ruling of 10 December 2025, the training centre 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 transposable to the professional transition project (PTP)?

Yes. Since the PTP replaced the CIF with a similar legal mechanism (suspension of the contract and external training), the solution reached by the Cour de cassation is fully transposable. A training centre hosting an employee on PTP is not their employer.

Can the 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 by reason of or in connection with work, including during a training period. A 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 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.