French Labour Law

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

DAIRIA Law · 2026-08-04 · 8 min

Training Center Is Not an Employer During a French Training Leave (CIF/PTP): Cass. soc., 10 December 2025, No. 24-10.205

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

In a ruling 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 center hosting an employee under an individual training leave (congé individuel de formation, or CIF). The Court holds that the person in charge of the training center is not an “other employer” within the meaning of Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code during the CIF period.

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

Unfortunately, the employee was injured in an accident while on the training center’s premises. Following this accident, the employee sought 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 suffers a workplace accident while placed at the disposal of an “other employer.”

The employee argued that the training center, by hosting the employee and supervising the training, exercised the prerogatives of an employer and should therefore be classified as such within the meaning of the Labour Code.

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

The question submitted to the Supreme Court was as follows: can the person in charge of 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 a specific regime where an employee, the victim of 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, a relationship of subordination must be established between the employee and the third party to whom the employee was entrusted. It is precisely this classification that was at issue: does the training center exercise a power of direction, control, and sanction over the trainee employee, characteristic of a relationship of subordination?

The CIF, which has since become the professional transition project (projet de transition professionnelle, or PTP), is a scheme allowing an employee to be absent from their position in order to attend a training program 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: Rejection — The Training Center Is Not an Employer

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on this point and overturned the appellate ruling. It set out the following principle: the person in charge of the training center is not an “other employer” within the meaning of Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code during 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 toward the trainee employee.

The Court based 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 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-based. The center has no power to impose disciplinary sanctions on the employee;
  • Continuation of the contractual relationship 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 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. The CIF, however, does not effect such a transfer.

The Context: Distinguishing a Training Service From an Employment Relationship

This decision is consistent with the settled case law of the Supreme Court, which carefully distinguishes a training service from an employment relationship. The training center is a provider of educational services, not an employer.

Classification as an employer presupposes the combination of three classic criteria developed by case law: the power to give orders and directives, the power to monitor their performance, and the power to sanction breaches (Cass. soc., 13 November 1996, No. 94-13.187, Société Générale ruling). While the training center may indeed 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 1 January 2019 (Ordinance No. 2019-861 of 21 August 2019). Nevertheless, 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 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 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 the party responsible for the related obligations.

Why This Matters for Employers: Clearer Responsibilities During the 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 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;
  • Reinstatement obligation: at the end of the training, the employer must reinstate the employee in their position or in an equivalent position;
  • Handling of the workplace accident: if the accident occurring at the training center qualifies 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 subject to the obligations of an employer toward the employee on CIF/PTP. In particular, it does not have:

  • The obligation to redeploy the employee in the event of unfitness for work;
  • The obligation to pay termination indemnities;
  • The obligations related to the workplace accident regime (continued pay, supplementary allowances).

However, the training center remains bound by a general duty of safety under its ordinary civil liability. It must ensure the safety of persons hosted on its premises, in accordance with the general rules of liability.

DAIRIA Avocats’ Recommendations

The DAIRIA Avocats team recommends that employers:

  1. Clearly inform the employee of their legal status during the CIF/PTP: their employer remains the original company, and it is to that company they must turn in the event of difficulty;
  2. Verify the training center’s insurance: even though it is not an employer, the center must hold civil liability insurance covering accidents occurring on its premises;
  3. Provide for clear contractual clauses in the tripartite training agreement, defining the respective responsibilities of the employer and the training center;
  4. Declare any accident occurring during the training as a potential workplace accident, within the 48-hour time limit provided by Article L.441-2 of the French Social Security Code.

FAQ: Common Questions on the Training Center’s Status During a CIF/PTP

Does the training center have disciplinary authority 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 hold disciplinary authority within the meaning of employment law. Only the original employer may exercise this authority, within the limits set by the suspension of the contract.

Who is liable if the employee has an accident at the training center?

The original employer remains the primary party liable under workplace accident legislation. However, the training center’s ordinary civil liability may be engaged 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 10 December 2025, the training center is not an “other employer” within the meaning of this article. The employee therefore cannot rely on the protective provisions related to placement at the disposal of a user employer.

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

Yes. Since 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 center hosting an employee on a 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 as a result 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 prepared by the team at DAIRIA Avocats, a firm specializing in French employment law. It does not constitute individualized legal advice. For any specific situation, we invite you to consult a lawyer.

← All insights