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

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

In a decision 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 provider hosting an employee under an individual training leave (“congé individuel de formation” or CIF). The Court holds that the person responsible for the training provider is not a “second employer” (autre employeur) within the meaning of Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code for the duration of the CIF.

This decision is of interest to both employers and training organisations, as it clearly delineates the 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 provider

An employee took an individual training leave (CIF) with a training provider. 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 provider’s premises. Following this accident, the employee sought to hold the training provider liable by relying on Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code, which governs situations where an employee is injured in a workplace accident while made available to a “second employer”.

The employee argued that the training provider, by hosting them and supervising their training, exercised employer-type prerogatives over them and should be classified as such within the meaning of the Labour Code.

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

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

The question put to the Supreme Court was as follows: can the person responsible for a training provider 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, injured in a workplace accident, was made available to a second employer at the time of the accident. This provision organises the tripartite relationship between the employee, their 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 they were entrusted. It is precisely this classification that is at stake: does the training provider exercise a power of direction, control and sanction over the trainee employee, which is characteristic of 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 take leave from their position 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 provider delivers a teaching service.

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

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the merits and quashed the Court of Appeal’s decision. It laid down the following principle: the person responsible for the training provider is not a “second 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 provider does not exercise employer prerogatives over the trainee employee.

The Court based its decision on several factors:

Absence of a relationship of subordination: the training provider delivers instruction to the employee but does not exercise over them the power of direction, control and sanction that is characteristic of an employment contract;
Nature of the relationship: the relationship between the training provider and the employee on CIF is pedagogical in nature, not employment-based. The provider 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 of making an employee available to a second employer, which presupposes a transfer of authority. The CIF does not effect such a transfer.

The context: the distinction between a training service and an employment relationship

This decision is part of an established line of case law from the Supreme Court that carefully distinguishes the provision of training from the employment relationship. The training provider is a supplier of pedagogical services, not an employer.

The classification of an employer requires the combination of three classic criteria established by case law: the power to give orders and directives, the power to control their execution and the power to sanction breaches (Cass. soc., 13 November 1996, No. 94-13.187, Société Générale judgment). While the training provider may certainly impose class schedules, require attendance at courses and assess acquired skills, these prerogatives fall within pedagogical 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 (Order No. 2019-861 of 21 August 2019). However, the solution reached by the Supreme Court 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 provider. An employee injured in this context benefits from workplace accident legislation (the accident having occurred as a result 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.

What it means for employers: clarified responsibilities during the CIF/PTP

This ruling is of dual interest to employers and training providers.

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:

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 job or an equivalent position;
Managing the workplace accident: if the accident occurring at the training provider is classified as a workplace accident, it is the original employer who must file the accident declaration and manage its consequences.

For the training provider

The training provider is not subject to 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 for work;
The obligation to pay termination indemnities;
The obligations linked to the workplace accident regime (continued payment of salary, supplementary indemnities).

However, the training provider remains subject to 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:

Clearly inform the employee of their legal status during the CIF/PTP: their employer remains the original company, and it is to that company that they should turn in the event of any difficulty;
Verify the training provider’s insurance: even though it is not an employer, the provider 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 provider;
Declare any accident occurring during the training as a potential workplace accident, within the 48-hour period provided for by Article L.441-2 of the French Social Security Code.

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

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

No. The training provider may impose pedagogical 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 power, within the limits set by the suspension of the contract.

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. As 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 transposable. A training provider hosting an employee on PTP is not their employer.

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

No. The employer is required to declare any accident of which it is aware and that occurred as a result of, or in connection with, work, including during a training period. A failure to declare exposes the employer to penalties and to bearing the financial consequences of the accident.

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