French Labour Law

Individual Training Leave: The Training Center is Not an Employer

DAIRIA Law · 2026-06-23 · 8 min

Individual Training Leave: The Training Center is Not an Employer

On December 10, 2025, the social chamber of the Cour de cassation provided an important clarification regarding the legal status of the training center hosting an employee under an individual training leave (CIF). The highest court ruled that the person responsible for the training center is not an “other employer” as defined by Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code during the period of the CIF.

This decision is of interest not only to employers but also to training organizations, as it clearly delineates the responsibilities of each party during the training period. DAIRIA Avocats analyzes this ruling and its practical implications.

The Facts: An Employee in CIF Suffers an Accident at the Training Center

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

Unfortunately, the employee suffers an accident while at the training center’s premises. Following this accident, he seeks to hold the training center responsible by invoking the provisions of Article L.1226-6 of the Labour Code, which governs the situation when an employee suffers a workplace accident while made available to another employer.

The employee argues that the training center, by hosting and supervising his training, exercises the prerogatives of an employer and should be classified as such according to the Labour Code.

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

The question presented to the Cour de cassation is as follows: Can the head of a training center hosting an employee under an individual training leave be characterized as an “other employer” within the meaning of Article L.1226-6 of the Labour Code?

Article L.1226-6 of the Labour Code prescribes a specific regime when an employee, who is a victim of a workplace accident, is made available to another employer at the time of the accident. This text organizes the tripartite relations between the employee, his original employer, and the user employer.

For this text to apply, it must be established that a relationship of subordination exists between the employee and the third party to whom he has been entrusted. The question of qualification is precisely what is at stake: does the training center exert a power of direction, control, and sanction over the training employee, characteristic of the subordination link?

The CIF, which has since evolved into the Professional Transition Project (PTP), is a mechanism that allows the employee to be absent from his position to pursue training of his choice. During this period, the employment contract is suspended but not terminated. The employee remains tied to his original employer, while the training center provides an educational service.

The Solution: Rejection — the Training Center is Not an Employer

The Cour de cassation rejects the appeal and overturns the appellate ruling. It establishes the following principle: The person responsible for the training center is not an “other employer” as defined by Article L.1226-6 of the Labour Code during the duration of the individual training leave. The employment contract remains suspended with the original employer, and the training center does not exercise employer prerogatives towards the employee in training.

The Supreme Court bases its decision on several elements:

  • No Subordination Link: The training center provides education to the employee but does not exert a power of direction, control, and sanction characteristic of an employment contract;
  • Nature of the Relationship: The relationship between the training center and the employee in CIF is pedagogical rather than employment-related. The center does not have the power to discipline the employee;
  • Maintaining the Contractual Link with the Original Employer: During the CIF, the employment contract is merely suspended. The employee retains his status as an employee of the original company, which structures his rights and obligations;
  • Inapplicability of Article L.1226-6: This text refers to situations of allocation to another employer, which assumes a transfer of authority. The CIF does not execute such a transfer.

The Context: Distinction Between Training Provision and Employment Relationship

This decision aligns with a consistent jurisprudence of the Cour de cassation that carefully distinguishes training provision from the employment relationship. The training center is a provider of educational services, not an employer.

The qualification of employer requires the meeting of three classic criteria identified in case law: the power to give orders and directives, the power to control their execution, and the power to sanction non-compliance (Cass. soc., November 13, 1996, No. 94-13.187, Société Générale ruling). Although the training center can impose class schedules, require attendance, and assess acquired skills, these prerogatives fall under educational supervision rather than employer authority.

It is important to note that the individual training leave has been replaced by the professional transition project (PTP) since January 1, 2019 (Ordinance No. 2019-861 of August 21, 2019). However, the solution proposed by the Cour de cassation in this ruling is fully transferable to the PTP, whose legal mechanism is similar: suspension of the employment contract and training with an external organization.

This decision also clarifies the liability regimes in case of an accident occurring at a training center. An employee who suffers an accident in this context benefits from workplace accident legislation (the accident occurring due to or in connection with the training, itself linked to the employment contract), but it is the original employer who remains liable for the associated obligations.

The Interest for the Employer: Clarification of Responsibilities During CIF/PTP

This ruling presents a dual interest for employers and training centers.

For the Original Employer

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

  • Maintaining Contractual Responsibility: The employer remains responsible under the employment contract, including in the event of an accident occurring during training;
  • Reintegration Obligation: At the end of the training, the employer must reintegrate the employee into his position or an equivalent position;
  • Management of Workplace Accident: If an accident occurring in the training center is classified as a workplace accident, it is the original employer who must report the accident and manage the subsequent procedures.

For the Training Center

The training center is not bound by employer obligations towards the employee in CIF/PTP. In particular, it does not have:

  • The obligation to provide redeployment in case of incapacity;
  • The obligation to pay severance amounts;
  • The obligations related to the workplace accident regime (salary maintenance, supplementary compensation).

However, the training center remains subject to a general duty of care under its common law civil liability. It must ensure the safety of individuals welcomed in its premises, in accordance with general liability rules.

Recommendations from DAIRIA Avocats

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 they should turn to it in case of difficulties;
  2. Verify the Training Center’s Insurance: even if it is not an employer, the center should have liability insurance covering accidents occurring in its premises;
  3. Provide Clear Contractual Clauses in the tripartite training agreement, defining the respective responsibilities of the employer and the training center;
  4. Report Any Accident occurring during training as a potential workplace accident, within the 48-hour deadline set by Article L.441-2 of the Social Security Code.

FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions About the Status of the Training Center During a CIF/PTP

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

No. The training center can enforce pedagogical rules (attendance, compliance with internal rules of the establishment), but it does not have disciplinary power in the sense of labor law. Only the original employer can exercise this power, within the limits imposed by the suspension of the contract.

Who is responsible in the event of an accident involving the employee at the training center?

The original employer remains primarily responsible under workplace accident legislation. However, the training center may find its common law civil liability engaged if negligence is demonstrated (failure to maintain premises, non-compliance with safety standards, etc.).

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

No. As confirmed by the ruling on December 10, 2025, the training center is not an “other employer” as defined by this article. Therefore, the employee cannot rely on the protective provisions associated with allocation to a user employer.

Is this solution transferable 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 established by the Cour de cassation is fully transferable. The training center hosting an employee in a PTP is not the employee’s employer.

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

No. The employer is required to report any accident of which they are aware that occurs due to or in connection with work, including during a training period. Refusal to report exposes them to sanctions and financial consequences related to the accident.

This article is a legal commentary written by the team at DAIRIA Avocats, a firm specialized in labor law. It does not constitute personalized legal advice. For any individual situation, we invite you to consult an attorney.

← All insights