Individual Training Leave: Training Centers Not Considered Employers

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

In a decision dated December 10, 2025 (n° 24-10.205), the social chamber of the Cour de cassation provided an important clarification regarding the legal status of training centers hosting employees under Individual Training Leave (CIF). The Supreme Court ruled 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 of interest to both employers and training organizations, clearly delineating the responsibilities of each during the training period. DAIRIA Avocats analyzes this ruling and its concrete implications.

The Facts: An Employee on CIF Injured at the Training Center

An employee benefits from an Individual Training Leave (CIF) at a training center. During this period, the employment contract connecting him to his 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, he seeks to hold the training center liable by invoking the provisions of Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code, which governs the situation where an employee is a victim of an occupational accident while placed at the disposal of an “other employer.”

The employee argues that the training center, by hosting and supervising his training, exercises the prerogatives of an employer and should be categorized 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 Cour de cassation is as follows: can the person responsible for a training center hosting an employee under an Individual Training Leave be classified as an “other employer” under 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 text 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 relationship of subordination between the employee and the third party to whom they were entrusted. It is precisely this qualification that is in dispute: does the training center exercise power of direction, control, and sanction over the employee in training, characteristics of the subordinate relationship?

The CIF, which has since evolved into the professional transition project (PTP), is a mechanism that allows employees to leave their position to pursue training of their choice. During this period, the employment contract is suspended but not terminated. The employee remains connected to their original employer, and the training center provides educational services.

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

The Cour de cassation rejected the appeal and overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision. It established the principle that the person responsible for the training center is not an “other employer” under 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 towards the employee in training.

The Supreme Court based its decision on several elements:

Absence of a subordinate relationship: the training center provides teaching 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 and not contractual. The center does not have the authority to discipline the employee;
Maintenance of contractual link with the original employer: during the CIF, the employment contract is simply suspended. The employee retains their status as an employee of the original company, and this relationship structures their rights and obligations;
Inapplicability of Article L.1226-6: this text addresses situations of placement with another employer, implying a transfer of authority. However, CIF does not effectuate such a transfer.

The Context: Distinction Between Training Services and Employment Relationships

This decision fits into a consistent case law of the Cour de cassation that carefully distinguishes between training services and employment relationships. 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 case law: the power 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 ruling). While the training center can impose class schedules, require participation in teachings, and assess acquired skills, these prerogatives pertain to pedagogical supervision rather than employer managerial authority.

It is important to note that Individual Training Leave was replaced by the professional transition project (PTP) as of January 1, 2019 (ordonnance n° 2019-861 of August 21, 2019). However, the solution provided by the Cour de cassation in this ruling is fully applicable to the PTP, whose legal mechanism is similar: suspension of the employment contract and training with an external organization.

This ruling also clarifies liability regimes in the event of an accident occurring at a training center. An employee injured in this context benefits from occupational accident legislation (the accident occurring due to or during training, which is itself linked to the employment contract), but the original employer 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 original employer retains exclusive ownership of the employment contract during the CIF or PTP period. This status entails several consequences:

Maintenance of contractual responsibility: the employer remains liable under the employment contract, even in the event of an accident occurring during training;
Reintegration obligation: after training, the employer must reintegrate the employee into their job or an equivalent position;
Management of occupational accidents: if the accident at the training center is classified as an occupational accident, it is the original employer who must declare the accident and manage its aftermath.

For the Training Center

The training center is not bound to the obligations of an employer towards the employee in CIF/PTP. Specifically, it does not have:

The obligation to reclassify in case of unfitness;
The obligation to pay termination benefits;
The obligations associated with the occupational accidents regime (salary maintenance, supplementary benefits).

However, the training center is still subject to a general safety obligation concerning its civil liability. It must ensure the safety of individuals received on its premises, in accordance with general rules of liability.

Recommendations from DAIRIA Avocats

The team at DAIRIA Avocats recommends that employers:

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;
Check the insurance of the training center: even though it is not an employer, the center should 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 training as a potential work accident, within the 48-hour period specified in Article L.441-2 of the Social Security Code.

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

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

No. The training center can impose pedagogical rules (attendance, adherence to the internal regulations of the establishment), but it does not have disciplinary authority in the sense of labor law. Only the original employer can exercise this authority, within the limits established by the suspension of the contract.

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

The original employer remains the primary responsible party under occupational accident legislation. However, the training center may have its civil liability engaged if a fault on its part is demonstrated (e.g., failure to maintain premises, non-compliance with safety standards, etc.).

Can the employee on 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 considered an “other employer” under this article. Therefore, the employee cannot avail themselves of the protective provisions related to placement with a user employer.

Is this solution applicable 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 established by the Cour de cassation is fully applicable. A training center hosting an employee under the 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. Refusing to declare it exposes them to penalties and financial consequences related to the accident.

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