French Labour Law

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

DAIRIA Law · 2026-08-11 · 9 min

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

A Training Provider 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 Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) provides an important clarification on the legal status of a training provider hosting an employee under an individual training leave (congé individuel de formation, or “CIF”). The Court holds that the person responsible for the training provider is not an “other employer” within the meaning of Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code during the period of the CIF.

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 Provider’s Premises

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

Unfortunately, the employee was injured while on the training provider’s premises. Following this accident, the employee sought to hold the training provider liable by invoking Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code, which governs the situation where an employee is injured in a workplace accident while being made available to an “other employer”.

The employee argued that the training provider, 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 provider liable as an “other employer”.

The question put to the Cour de cassation was as follows: can the person responsible for a training provider 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 who is the victim of a workplace accident was made available to another employer at the time of the accident. This text organises the tripartite relationship between the employee, their original employer and the user employer.

For this text to apply, the existence of a relationship of subordination between the employee and the third party to whom they were entrusted must be established. It is precisely this classification that was in dispute: does the training provider exercise a power of direction, control and sanction over the employee in training, 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 that allows an employee to take leave from their position to pursue 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 provider delivers an educational service.

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

The Cour de cassation dismissed the appeal on this point and overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision. It laid down the following principle: the person responsible for the training provider is not an “other employer” within the meaning of Article L.1226-6 of the French Labour Code during the period of the individual training leave. The employment contract remains suspended with the original employer, and the training provider does not exercise the prerogatives of an employer towards the employee in training.

The Court based its decision on several elements:

  • Absence of a relationship of subordination: the training provider delivers 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 provider and the employee on CIF is educational in nature, not employment-based. The provider has no power to discipline the employee;
  • Maintenance of 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 targets situations of making available to another employer, which presupposes a transfer of authority. The CIF, however, does not effect such a transfer.

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

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

The classification as an employer requires the coming together of three classic criteria established by case law: the power to give orders and instructions, the power to control their execution and the power to sanction breaches (Cass. soc., 13 November 1996, No. 94-13.187, Société Générale ruling). While the training provider may indeed impose class schedules, require attendance at lessons 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). Nonetheless, the solution established 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 organisation.

This decision also clarifies the liability regimes in the event of an accident occurring at a training provider. 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 that remains the party bound by the related obligations.

Why This Matters for Employers: Clarification of Responsibilities During CIF/PTP

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

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:

  • Maintenance of 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 job or an equivalent position;
  • Management of the workplace accident: if the accident occurring at the training provider is classified as a workplace accident, it is the original employer that must file the accident declaration and manage its consequences.

For the Training Provider

The training provider is not bound by the obligations of an employer towards the employee on CIF/PTP. In particular, it has none of the following:

  • The redeployment obligation in the event of unfitness;
  • The obligation to pay termination indemnities;
  • The obligations linked to the workplace accident regime (maintenance of pay, supplementary indemnities).

However, the training provider 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. 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 they must turn in the event of a difficulty;
  2. Verify the training provider’s insurance: even though it is not an employer, the provider 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 provider;
  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 Provider During a CIF/PTP

Does the training provider have disciplinary authority over the employee on CIF?

No. The training provider 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 that authority, within the limits imposed by the suspension of the contract.

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

The original employer remains the principal party liable under workplace accident legislation. However, the training provider’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 provider?

No. As confirmed by the ruling of 10 December 2025, the training provider is not an “other employer” within the meaning of this article. The employee therefore cannot rely on the protective provisions linked to being made available to a user employer.

Is this solution transposable 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 transposable. A training provider hosting an employee on PTP is not their employer.

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

No. The employer is required to declare any accident of which it is aware and which occurred by reason of or in connection with work, including during a training period. A 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 DAIRIA Avocats team, a firm specialising in French employment law. It does not constitute personalised legal advice. For any individual situation, we invite you to consult a lawyer.

← All insights