Training Centers Are Not Employers During Individual Training Leave in France

The Training Center Cannot Be Designated as an Employer During a CIF

In a ruling 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 a training center hosting an employee under a congé individuel de formation (CIF) (individual training leave). The High Court held 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 duration of the CIF.

This decision is of interest to both employers and training organizations, as it clearly delineates the responsibilities of each party during the training period. DAIRIA Avocats breaks down this ruling and its concrete implications.

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

An employee is benefiting from a 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 French Labour Code, which governs situations in which an employee is the victim of a workplace accident while assigned to an “other employer.”

The employee argues that the training center, by hosting and supervising their training, exercises the prerogatives of an employer over them and should be qualified 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 in the Sense of the Labour Code?

The question posed to the Cour de cassation is as follows: Can the person in charge of a training center hosting an employee under a CIF be classified as an “other employer” within the meaning of 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 workplace accident, was assigned to another employer at the time of the accident. This text organizes the tripartite relationships among the employee, their original employer, and the user employer.

For this text to apply, a link of subordination between the employee and the third party to whom they have been entrusted must be established. This qualification is precisely what is debated: does the training center exercise a power of direction, control, and sanction over the employee in training, which is characteristic of a subordination link?

The CIF, which has since evolved into the projet de transition professionnelle (PTP) (professional transition project), is a mechanism that allows employees to take a leave from their positions 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, while the training center provides a pedagogical service.

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

The Cour de cassation dismisses the appeal and overturns the Appeal Court’s judgment. It establishes the principle that the person in charge of 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 over the training employee.

The High Court based its decision on several elements:

Absence of link of subordination: 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 pedagogical rather than wage-based. The center does not have the authority to impose disciplinary sanctions on the employee;
Maintaining the contractual link 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 text pertains to situations of assignment to another employer, which implies a transfer of authority. However, the CIF does not facilitate such a transfer.

The Context: Distinguishing Between Training Provision and Employment Relationship

This decision fits within a consistent case law of the Cour de cassation that carefully distinguishes between training provision and employment relationship. The training center is a provider of pedagogical 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 course schedules, require participation in teachings, and evaluate acquired skills, these prerogatives relate to pedagogical supervision rather than employer authority.

It is worth noting that the CIF has been replaced by the PTP since January 1, 2019 (ordinance n° 2019-861 of August 21, 2019). However, the solution reached by the Cour de cassation in this ruling is fully transferrable to the PTP, as its legal mechanism is similar: suspension of the employment contract and training with an external organization.

This decision also clarifies the regimes of liability in case of accidents occurring in a training center. An employee injured in this context benefits from the legislation on workplace accidents (the accident occurring as a result of or during training linked to the employment contract), but it is the original employer that remains liable for the corresponding obligations.

Employer Interest: Clarifying Responsibilities During CIF/PTP

This ruling offers dual benefits for both 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:

Maintaining contractual responsibility: the employer remains responsible under the employment contract, including in the event of an accident occurring during training;
Reintegration obligation: upon completion of the training, the employer must reintegrate the employee into their position or an equivalent position;
Management of workplace accident: if the accident occurring at the training center is classified as a workplace accident, it is the original employer who must report the accident and manage the follow-up.

For the Training Center

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

The obligation to redeploy in case of unfitness;
The obligation to pay severance compensation;
Obligations related to the workplace accident regime (wage maintenance, complementary compensation).

However, the training center remains subject to a general duty of safety under common civil liability. It must ensure the safety of individuals hosted within its premises, in accordance with general liability rules.

Recommendations from DAIRIA Avocats

The team at DAIRIA Avocats recommends employers to:

Clearly inform employees of their legal status during the CIF/PTP: their employer remains the original company, and it is to them they must turn in case of difficulties;
Verify the training center’s insurance: even if 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, outlining the respective responsibilities of the employer and the training center;
Report any accidents occurring during training as potential workplace accidents within the timeframe of 48 hours set forth 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 on CIF?

No. The training center can impose pedagogical rules (attendance, compliance with the establishment’s internal regulations), but it does not possess disciplinary power under labor law. Only the original employer can exercise this power, within the limits imposed by the suspension of the contract.

Who Is Responsible in Case of the Employee’s Accident at the Training Center?

The original employer remains the primary responsible party under workplace accident legislation. However, the training center may see its civil liability engaged if a fault on its part is demonstrated (e.g., lack of maintenance of 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. Therefore, the employee cannot rely on the protective provisions related to assignment to a user employer.

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

Yes. The PTP, which has 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 transferrable. The training center hosting an employee on PTP is not their employer.

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

No. The employer is required to report any accident of which it is aware that occurred as a result of or during work, including during a training period. Refusal to report exposes the employer to sanctions and financial consequences of the accident.