Training Center Is Not a Second Employer During French CIF Leave (Cass. soc., Dec. 10, 2025, No. 24-10.205)

A Training Center Cannot Be Classified as an Employer During a CIF

In a ruling dated December 10, 2025 (No. 24-10.205), the Labour Chamber of the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) provides important clarification on the legal status of a training center hosting an employee under an congé individuel de formation (CIF, individual training leave). The Court holds that the person responsible for the training center is not an “other employer” 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 organizations, as it clearly delineates each party’s responsibilities during the training period. DAIRIA Avocats analyzes this ruling and its practical implications.

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

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

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

The employee argues that the training center, by hosting the employee and supervising the training, exercises the prerogatives of an employer and must be classified as such within the meaning of the Labour Code.

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

The Legal Issue: Is the Training Center an Employer Within the Meaning of the Labour Code?

The question put to the Cour de cassation is as follows: may the person responsible for a training center hosting an employee under an individual training leave be classified as an “other 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, having suffered a workplace accident, was placed at the disposal of another employer at the time of the accident. This provision organizes the tripartite relationship between the employee, the original employer, and the user employer.

For this provision to apply, the existence of a relationship of subordination (lien de subordination) between the employee and the third party to whom the employee was entrusted must be established. It is precisely this classification that is in dispute: does the training center 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 projet de transition professionnelle (PTP, professional transition project), is a scheme that allows an employee to take leave from their position in order to pursue training of their choice. During this period, the employment contract is suspended but not terminated. The employee remains bound to the original employer, and the training center provides an educational service.

The Ruling: Dismissal — The Training Center Is Not an Employer

The Cour de cassation dismisses the appeal and quashes the Court of Appeal’s ruling. It establishes the following principle: the person responsible for the training center is not an “other 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 center does not exercise the prerogatives of an employer over the trainee employee.

The Court bases its decision on several factors:

Absence of a relationship of subordination: the training center provides instruction to the employee but does not exercise the power of direction, control, and sanction over the employee that is characteristic of an employment contract;
Nature of the relationship: the relationship between the training center and the employee on CIF is educational in nature, not employment-related. The center does not have the power to impose disciplinary sanctions on the employee;
Continuation of the contractual relationship 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 placement at the disposal of another employer, which presupposes a transfer of authority. However, the CIF does not effect such a transfer.

Background: The Distinction Between a Training Service and an Employment Relationship

This decision is consistent with the established case law of the Cour de cassation, which carefully distinguishes between a training service and an employment relationship. The training center is a provider of educational services, not an employer.

Classification as an employer requires the combination of three classic criteria developed by case law: the power to give orders and instructions, the power to monitor their performance, and the power to sanction failures to comply (Cass. soc., November 13, 1996, No. 94-13.187, Société Générale ruling). While the training center may certainly impose class schedules, require attendance at courses, and assess the skills acquired, these prerogatives fall within educational 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 January 1, 2019 (Order No. 2019-861 of August 21, 2019). However, the solution reached by the Cour de 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 decision also helps clarify the liability regimes in the event of an accident occurring at a training center. An employee injured in this context benefits from workplace accident legislation (the accident having occurred by reason 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.

Practical Significance for Employers: Clarification of Responsibilities During CIF/PTP

This ruling is of twofold interest to 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:

Continued contractual liability: the employer remains liable under the employment contract, including in the event of an accident occurring during the training;
Reinstatement obligation: at the end of the training, the employer must reinstate the employee in their position or an equivalent position;
Management of the workplace accident: if the accident occurring at the training center is classified as a workplace accident, it is the original employer who must file the accident declaration and manage its consequences.

For the Training Center

The training center is not bound by the obligations of an employer toward 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 severance indemnities;
The obligations related to the workplace accident regime (salary maintenance, supplementary allowances).

However, the training center remains bound by 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:

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

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

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

No. The training center may impose educational rules (attendance, compliance with the establishment’s internal regulations), but it does not have disciplinary power within the meaning of employment law. Only the original employer may exercise this power, within the limits imposed by the suspension of the contract.

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

The original employer remains the principal party liable under workplace accident legislation. However, the training center may incur its ordinary civil liability if fault on its part is established (failure to maintain the 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 an “other employer” within the meaning of this article. The employee therefore cannot rely on the protective provisions relating to placement at the disposal of a user employer.

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

Yes. As the PTP replaced the CIF with a similar legal mechanism (suspension of the contract and external training), the solution reached by the Cour de cassation is fully transposable. A training center hosting an employee on PTP is not their employer.

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

No. The employer is required to declare any accident of which it is aware and that occurred by reason of or in connection with the work, including during a training period. Failure to declare exposes the employer to sanctions and to bearing the financial consequences of the accident.

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