Individual Training Leave: Training Centers Are Not Employers

Training centers cannot be classified as employers during an Individual Training Leave

In a ruling dated December 10, 2025 (n° 24-10.205), the Social Chamber of the French Court of Cassation provided an important clarification regarding the legal status of a training center hosting an employee undergoing an Individual Training Leave (CIF). The Supreme Court ruled that the person responsible for the training center is not an “other employer” as defined in Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code for the duration of the CIF.

This decision is relevant to both employers and training organizations, clearly delineating the responsibilities of each during the training period. DAIRIA Avocats analyzes this ruling and its practical implications.

The facts: An employee on CIF suffers an accident at the training center

An employee is undergoing an Individual Training Leave (CIF) at a training center. During this period, the employment contract linking them to their original employer is suspended, in accordance with the legal provisions governing the CIF.

Unfortunately, the employee suffers an accident while at the training center. Following this accident, they seek to hold the training center liable by invoking the provisions of Article L.1226-6 of the Labour Code, which addresses situations where an employee suffers a work-related accident while being made available to an “other employer.”

The employee argues that the training center, by welcoming and supervising their training, exercises the prerogatives of an employer and should be classified as such under the Labour Code.

The Court of Appeal partially accepted this argument and held 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 person responsible for a training center hosting an employee as part of an Individual Training Leave be classified as an “other employer” as per Article L.1226-6 of the Labour Code?

Article L.1226-6 of the Labour Code provides a specific regime when an employee, victim of a work accident, was made available to another employer at the time of the accident. This regulation organizes the tripartite relationships between the employee, their original employer, and the user employer.

For this text to apply, it must be established that there is a subordinate relationship between the employee and the third party to whom they have been entrusted. This classification is precisely what is in dispute: does the training center exercise a power of direction, control, and sanction over the employee in training, which is characteristic of the subordinate relationship?

The CIF, which has since evolved into the Professional Transition Project (PTP), is a scheme that allows employees to take leave from their position to pursue training of their choice. During this period, the employment contract is suspended but not terminated. The employee remains linked to their original employer, and the training center provides educational services.

The ruling: Rejection — the training center is not an employer

The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal and overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling. It established the following principle: the person responsible for the training center is not an “other employer” as defined in 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 the prerogatives of an employer over the employee in training.

The Supreme Court based its decision on several elements:

Absence of a subordinate relationship: The training center provides education to the employee but does not exercise 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 on CIF is of a pedagogical nature and not of an employment nature. 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 solely 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 text applies to situations involving availability to another employer, which implies a transfer of authority. The CIF does not realize such a transfer.

The context: The distinction between training provision and employment relationship

This decision aligns with a consistent jurisprudence from the Court of 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 fulfillment of three classic criteria as established by the jurisprudence: the ability to give orders and directives, the power to control their execution, and the power to sanction breaches (Cass. soc., November 13, 1996, n° 94-13.187, Société Générale decision). While the training center may impose class schedules, require attendance, and assess acquired skills, these prerogatives fall under pedagogical supervision rather than employer direction.

It is important to note 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). However, the ruling established by the Court of Cassation in this case is fully transposable to the PTP, whose legal mechanism is similar: suspension of the employment contract and training provided by an outside organization.

This ruling also clarifies the liability regimes in the event of an accident occurring at a training center. An employee victim of an accident in this context benefits from the legislation on work accidents (the accident occurring due to or during training, linked to the employment contract), but it is the original employer who remains responsible for fulfilling related obligations.

The interest for employers: 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 CIF or PTP period. This status entails several consequences:

Maintenance of contractual responsibility: The employer remains responsible under the employment contract, including for accidents occurring during training.
Reintegration obligation: At the end of the training, the employer must reintegrate the employee into their job or an equivalent job.
Management of work accidents: If the accident occurring at the training center is classified as a work accident, it is the original employer who must declare the accident and manage its aftermath.

For the training center

The training center is not held to the obligations of an employer toward the employee in CIF/PTP. In particular, it does not have:

The obligation to reclassify in case of incapacity;
The obligation to pay severance benefits;
The obligations related to the work accident regime (salary maintenance, complementary indemnities).

However, the training center remains subject to a general obligation of safety under common 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 advises employers to:

Clearly inform the employee of their legal status during the CIF/PTP: their employer remains the original company, and it is to them that the employee should turn in case of difficulty;
Verify the training center’s insurance: even though it is not an employer, the center must have civil liability insurance covering accidents occurring on its premises;
Include clear contractual clauses in the tripartite training agreement, defining the respective responsibilities of the employer and the training center;
Declare any accident occurring during the training as a potential work accident, within the 48-hour period stipulated by Article L.441-2 of the social security code.

FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions on the Status of Training Centers during CIF/PTP

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

No. The training center can impose pedagogical rules (attendance, compliance with the center’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 accident involving the employee at the training center?

The original employer remains the primary responsible party under the legislation on work accidents. However, the training center may find its common civil liability engaged if it is demonstrated that it was at fault (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 of December 10, 2025, the training center is not an “other employer” as defined in this article. The employee cannot therefore benefit from the protective provisions related to being made available to a user employer.

Is this ruling transposable to the Professional Transition Project (PTP)?

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

Can the employer refuse to declare an accident that occurred at the training center?

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