Versailles Court of Appeal, October 1st, 2025, n° 23/02254
In a ruling dated 1 October 2025, the Versailles Court of Appeal clarified the consequences of a contractual termination agreed with a lawyer protected against dismissal who knowingly followed the approval procedure instead of the administrative authorisation procedure.
An employee, a labour lawyer and labour court advisor, initiates a contractual termination process with her employer, in the context of an internal reorganisation project.
Given her legal expertise, she handles the process herself.
She chose the standard termination agreement form and:
– Had the termination approved by the DREETS (Regional Directorate for Enterprise, Employment, Labour and Skills);
– Although she should have sought authorisation from the labour inspectorate due to her protected status.
After the termination, the employee discovered that the internal reorganisation project had ultimately been abandoned. In these circumstances, she brought the case before the labour court to have the contractual termination annulled on the grounds that it had not been authorised by the labour inspectorate.
The Court of Appeal first points out that when an employee holds a position as a labour court advisor, they enjoy protected status, meaning that the contractual termination must first be authorised by the labour inspectorate.
Termination based solely on approval is therefore null and void.
Furthermore, despite the employer’s knowledge of the employee’s protected status, the Court of Appeal found that the employee had acted with fraudulent intent, within the meaning of Article 1137 of the Civil Code.
As a social law specialist, the employee knowingly chose the CERFA form relating to the simple approval of the contractual termination, applicable to employees who do not benefit from protected employee status, rather than the administrative authorisation procedure.
The aim of this approach was to obtain a contractual termination more quickly, without going through the potentially longer process of labour inspection, as she had already found another job.
This concealment vitiated the employer’s consent.
The contractual termination was therefore annulled on the grounds of defect in the employer’s consent. As a result, the termination has the effect of a resignation, in accordance with a ruling by the Court of Cassation (Cass. soc., June 19, 2024, No. 23-10.817).
The employee must return the compensation received and pay the notice period compensation.
With this decision, the Court of Appeal, applying civil law principles of contract law, reiterates that a defect in consent renders the act null and void, in this case the contractual termination, and that the harmful consequences fall on the party responsible for the defect, in this case the employee.