Court of cassation, Social Division, 13 May 2026, n°25-12.560
An employer is required to organise any extraordinary meeting of the Social and Economic Committee (CSE) that has been duly requested, without having to assess its usefulness, and in accordance with the conditions set out in the applicable provisions, in particular Article L 2312-19 of the Labour Code.
However, in its ruling of 13 May 2026, the Social Division (chambre sociale) of the Court of Cassation revisited the question of the advisability of requests to convene extraordinary meetings submitted by CSE members.
In the case at hand, the company’s CSE brought proceedings before the tribunal judiciaire on 7 January 2021, alleging obstruction of its regular functioning and seeking damages on that basis.
The CSE contended that the employer had committed the offence of obstruction (délit d’entrave) by refusing to organise certain extraordinary meetings. It reiterated the principle whereby an employer, who is not entitled to assess the advisability or usefulness of a duly requested extraordinary meeting, is nonetheless required to organise it in the absence of an insurmountable obstacle.
The company defended itself by arguing that it had already organised a very large number of meetings in response to the committee’s requests, and that it could not be held liable for having declined to convene certain meetings, given the absence of any demonstrated urgency.
The Versailles Court of Appeal, in its judgment of 9 January 2025, dismissed all of the committee’s claims. With regard to the number of meetings, the judgment noted that the applicable collective agreement provided that the CSE would meet once a month, with the exception of August, for ordinary meetings, and as often as necessary for extraordinary meetings, with four of those meetings dealing, in whole or in part, with the committee’s responsibilities in matters of health, safety and working conditions.
The Court nonetheless followed the company’s line of argument, noting that since the CSE was established in April 2019, 28 meetings had been held in 2019 and 31 in 2020, and that the majority of those meetings had been convened at the request of CSE members. The Court further noted that the urgent nature of those meetings had not been established.
The CSE lodged an appeal on points of law (pourvoi en cassation).
The Social Division of the Court of Cassation, in a ruling dated 13 May 2026 (No. 25-12.560), dismissed the appeal in its entirety and upheld the reasoning of the Versailles Court of Appeal.
The Court first recalled the applicable statutory framework:
Having then noted the exceptional volume of meetings held at the request of elected members in 2019 and 2020, and the absence of any demonstration of urgency, the Court of Cassation held that the Court of Appeal was entitled to legitimately conclude that obstruction of the committee’s regular functioning had not been established. The Court noted that the employer could not be reproached for having alerted the committee as to the advisability of holding an extraordinary meeting two days before the scheduled monthly ordinary meeting.
The ruling suggests that the abusive exercise by a majority of CSE elected members of their right to request extraordinary meetings could, in specific circumstances, be taken into account by a court when assessing the employer’s conduct and the absence of the offence of obstruction.
This solution should nonetheless be approached with caution in light of the particular circumstances of the case, namely the considerable volume of additional meetings already held and the fact that the request — which did not appear to be justified by any particular urgency — was made only two days before the regular monthly meeting.
It should also be recalled that in companies with at least fifty employees, the CSE must be convened, in particular upon a reasoned request from two employee representative members, on matters relating to health, safety or working conditions (Labour Code, Art. L. 2315-27).