Individual Training Leave: Training Center is Not Another Employer

The Training Center Cannot Be Qualified as an Employer During an CIF

In a ruling dated December 10, 2025 (n° 24-10.205), the social chamber of the Court of Cassation provides important clarification on the legal status of training centers hosting an employee under an individual training leave (CIF) program. The Supreme Court holds that the individual responsible for the training center is not considered an “other employer” under Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code during the duration of the CIF.

This decision is significant for both employers and training organizations, as it clearly delineates the responsibilities of each party during the training period. DAIRIA Avocats examines this ruling and its practical implications.

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

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

Unfortunately, the employee suffers an accident while on the premises of the training center. Following this accident, he seeks to hold the training center liable by invoking the provisions of Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code, which governs situations where an employee is the victim of an occupational accident while being placed at the service of an “other employer”.

The employee argues that the training center, by hosting and supervising his training, exercises the prerogatives of an employer over him and should be qualified as such under the Labour Code.

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

The Legal Issue: Is the Training Center an Employer Under the Labour Code?

The question posed to the Court of Cassation is as follows: Can the head of a training center hosting an employee within the framework of an individual training leave be qualified as an “other employer” under Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code?

Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code provides a specific regime when an employee, victim of an occupational accident, was placed at the service of another employer at the time of the accident. This text regulates the tripartite relationship between the employee, his original employer, and the employing entity.

For this text to apply, it is essential to establish the existence of a relationship of subordination between the employee and the third party to whom he has been entrusted. This qualification is precisely what is in debate: does the training center exercise a power of direction, control, and sanction over the employee in training, characteristics of the subordination link?

The CIF, which has since been replaced by the Professional Transition Project (PTP), is a scheme that allows an employee to be absent from their position to undergo training of their choice. During this period, the employment contract is suspended but not terminated. The employee remains tied to their original employer, and the training center provides educational services.

The Decision: Rejection – The Training Center is Not an Employer

The Court of Cassation rejects the appeal and overturns the appellate ruling. It establishes the following principle: the individual responsible for the training center is not an “other employer” within the meaning of Article L.1226-6 of the French 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 the prerogatives of an employer over the employee in training.

The Supreme Court bases its decision on several elements:

Lack of Subordination Link: The training center provides education to the employee but does not exercise a power of direction, control, and sanction characteristic of an employment relationship;
Nature of the Relationship: The relationship between the training center and the employee in CIF is pedagogical in nature and not of a contractual employment nature. The center does not have the power to discipline the employee;
Maintenance of Contractual Link with the Original Employer: During the CIF, the employment contract is simply suspended. The employee retains his status as an employee of the original company and this relationship structures his rights and obligations;
Inapplicability of Article L.1226-6: This text addresses situations of placement with another employer, which implies a transfer of authority. However, the CIF does not effect such a transfer.

The Context: The Distinction Between Training Provision and Employment Relationship

This decision is consistent with established jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation, which 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 fulfillment of three classic criteria established by jurisprudence: the power to give orders and directives, the power to control their execution, and the power to sanction violations (Cass. soc., November 13, 1996, n° 94-13.187, Société Générale ruling). While the training center may impose course schedules, require attendance, and evaluate acquired competencies, these prerogatives pertain to pedagogical oversight and not to employer’s managerial power.

It is worth noting that the individual training leave has been replaced by the Professional Transition Project (PTP) since January 1, 2019 (Ordinance n° 2019-861 of August 21, 2019). Nevertheless, the solution reached by the Court of 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 organization.

This ruling also clarifies the liability regimes in case of an accident occurring at a training center. The employee victim of an accident in this context benefits from the legislation on occupational accidents (the accident occurring by reason of or during the training, itself linked to the employment contract), but it is the original employer who remains the debtor of the relevant obligations.

The Interest for Employers: Clarification of Responsibilities During CIF/PTP

This ruling presents 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:

Maintenance of Contractual Responsibility: The employer remains responsible under the employment contract, even 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 Occupational Accident: If the accident occurring in the training center is classified as an occupational accident, it is the original employer who must report the incident and manage the subsequent processes.

For the Training Center

The training center is not subject to the obligations of an employer with respect to the employee in CIF/PTP. It specifically does not have:

The obligation to reclassify an employee in case of incapacity;
The obligation to pay severance indemnities;
The obligations related to the occupational accident regimen (salary maintenance, supplemental indemnities).

Nevertheless, the training center remains subject to a general obligation of safety under its civil liability. It must ensure the safety of individuals welcomed in its premises, in accordance with general rules of liability.

DAIRIA Avocats’ Recommendations

The team at DAIRIA Avocats recommends employers to:

Properly Inform the Employee of their legal status during the CIF/PTP: their employer remains the original company, and it is to the latter that they should turn in case of difficulties;
Check the Training Center’s Insurance: although it is not an employer, the center should have liability insurance covering accidents occurring on its premises;
Provide Clear Contractual Clauses in the tripartite training agreement defining the respective responsibilities of the employer and the training center;
Report Any Accident occurring during training as a potential occupational accident within the deadline of 48 hours provided for by Article L.441-2 of the French 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 impose pedagogical rules (attendance, compliance with the institution’s internal regulations), but it does not have disciplinary power in the sense of labor law. Only the original employer can exercise this power, within the limits set by the suspension of the contract.

Who is Responsible in Case of an Employee Accident at the Training Center?

The original employer remains the primary responsible party under the legislation on occupational accidents. However, the training center may have its civil liability engaged if it is shown that there was a fault on its part (lack of maintenance of the premises, failure to comply with safety standards, etc.).

Can the Employee in 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 cannot therefore rely on the protective provisions related to being placed with an employing entity.

Is This Solution Transposable to the Professional Transition Project (PTP)?

Yes. The PTP having replaced the CIF with a similar legal mechanism (suspension of the contract and external training), the solution established by the Court of Cassation is fully applicable. The training center hosting an employee in the PTP is not their employer.

Can the Employer Refuse to Report an Accident that Occurred at the Training Center?

No. The employer is required to report any accident of which they are aware that occurred by reason of or during work, including during a training period. Refusal to report exposes them to penalties and to bearing the financial consequences of the accident.