Cass. soc. September 10, 2025, no. 24-12.900
Cass. soc. September 24, 2025, no. 22-20.155
In two rulings of September 10 and 24, 2025, the Cour de cassation held that neither the request to the CPAM for recognition of the occupational nature of an accident or illness, nor the decision to cover the costs, is sufficient to trigger the application of the protection against dismissal provided for in article L.1226-9 of the French Labour Code.
In its ruling of September 24, 2025, the High Court states for the first time that the mere fact that the employer is aware of the employee’s application for recognition of an occupational disease does not trigger the protection against dismissal offered to victims of occupational injuries.
It considered that, since the occupational nature of the illness was disputed by the employer, the Court of Appeal should have investigated whether the sick leave was at least partly due to an occupational injury, irrespective of the declaration of occupational illness made by the employee.
The Court of Cassation adopted a similar line of reasoning in its ruling of September 10, 2025, regarding the impact of a decision by the CPAM to cover the employee’s medical expenses. It states that the fact that the CPAM’s decision to cover the cost of sick leave is based on occupational risk legislation is not in itself sufficient to establish the occupational origin of the accident, or to entitle the employee to protection against dismissal.
It is therefore up to the Labour Court to form its opinion on the basis of all the evidence in the case. It must therefore take account of the CPAM’s decision, among other factors, without being bound by it.
The Court of Cassation has thus reaffirmed the Labour Court judge’s discretionary power: it is not bound by any claim or recognition before the CPAM and must determine, after analysing all the evidence produced, whether the sick leave was at least partly due to an occupational injury.
This decision therefore implies that an AT/MP could meet two distinct definitions: one in terms of social security law and the other in terms of labour law alone.