French Labour Law

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

DAIRIA Law · 2026-08-18 · 8 min

Training Centre Is Not an Employer During French CIF Training Leave (Cass. soc., 10 December 2025, No. 24-10.205)

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

In a ruling dated 10 December 2025 (No. 24-10.205), the Social Chamber of the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) provides an important clarification on the legal status of a training centre hosting an employee under an individual training leave scheme (congé individuel de formation, or CIF). The Court holds that the person responsible for the training centre 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 organisations, as it clearly delineates each party’s responsibilities during the training period. DAIRIA Avocats analyses this ruling and its practical implications.

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

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

Unfortunately, the employee was injured in an accident while on the training centre’s premises. Following this accident, the employee sought to establish the training centre’s liability by invoking the provisions of Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code, which governs the situation where an employee is injured in a workplace accident while placed at the disposal of an “other employer”.

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

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

The question put to the Cour de cassation was as follows: can the person responsible for a training centre 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, injured in a workplace accident, was placed at the disposal of another employer at the time of the accident. This provision governs the three-way relationship between the employee, their original employer, and the user employer.

For this provision to apply, the existence of a relationship of subordination between the employee and the third party to whom they have been entrusted must be established. It is precisely this classification that is in dispute: does the training centre exercise a power of direction, control and sanction over the trainee employee, which is 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 take leave from their position to undertake training of their choice. During this period, the employment contract is suspended but not terminated. The employee remains bound to their original employer, and the training centre provides an educational service.

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

The Cour de cassation dismissed the appeal on points of law and overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision. It laid down the following principle: the person responsible for the training centre 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 centre does not exercise the prerogatives of an employer towards the trainee employee.

The Court based its decision on several factors:

  • Absence of a relationship of subordination: the training centre provides instruction to the employee but does not exercise over them the power of direction, control and sanction characteristic of an employment contract;
  • Nature of the relationship: the relationship between the training centre and the CIF employee is educational, not employment-based. The centre 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 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.

The Context: Distinguishing the Training Service from the Employment Relationship

This decision is part of a consistent line of case law from the Cour de cassation that carefully distinguishes the training service from the employment relationship. The training centre is a provider of educational services, not an employer.

Classification as an employer requires the presence of the three classic criteria established by case law: the power to give orders and directions, 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 centre may certainly impose class schedules, require attendance at lessons and assess acquired skills, these prerogatives fall within educational supervision and not 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 (Order No. 2019-861 of 21 August 2019). However, the solution reached 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 organisation.

This decision also helps clarify the liability regimes in the event of an accident occurring at a training centre. The employee injured in such circumstances benefits from workplace accident legislation (the accident having occurred through 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: Clarifying Responsibilities During CIF/PTP

This ruling is of dual interest to employers and training centres.

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;
  • Handling of the workplace accident: if an accident occurring at the training centre is classified as a workplace accident, it is the original employer who must file the accident declaration and manage its consequences.

For the Training Centre

The training centre is not bound by an employer’s obligations towards the CIF/PTP employee. In particular, it does not have:

  • The obligation to redeploy the employee in the event of unfitness for work;
  • The obligation to pay severance indemnities;
  • The obligations relating to the workplace accident regime (salary continuation, supplementary indemnities).

However, the training centre 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 general liability rules.

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 this company that they should turn in the event of difficulty;
  2. Verify the training centre’s insurance: even though it is not an employer, the centre must hold civil liability insurance covering accidents occurring on its premises;
  3. Provide for clear contractual clauses in the three-way training agreement, defining the respective responsibilities of the employer and the training centre;
  4. Declare any accident occurring during the training as a potential workplace accident, within the 48-hour period provided for by Article L.441-2 of the French Social Security Code.

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

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

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

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

The original employer remains the principal party liable under workplace accident legislation. However, the training centre’s ordinary civil liability may be engaged if fault on its part is demonstrated (failure to maintain the premises, non-compliance with safety standards, etc.).

Can the employee on CIF invoke Article L.1226-6 against the training centre?

No. As confirmed by the ruling of 10 December 2025, the training centre is not an “other employer” within the meaning of this article. The employee cannot therefore rely on the protective provisions relating to placement at the disposal of a user employer.

Does this solution apply 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 reached by the Cour de cassation is fully applicable. A training centre hosting an employee on a PTP is not their employer.

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

No. The employer is required to declare any accident of which it is aware and which occurred through 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 written by the team at DAIRIA Avocats, a firm specialising in employment law. It does not constitute personalised legal advice. For any individual situation, we invite you to consult a lawyer.

← All insights