A worker who stopped working nearly two years ago still had a legal contract, per a court ruling emphasizing that termination dates are set by notice, not absence.
Legal contract remains active
A worker who had not been working for nearly two years still had their employment contract legally intact, according to a ruling by France’s highest court, the Court of Cassation. The court clarified that the legal end of a contract is determined by the date the termination notice is given, not by the time the employee stops working.Court sets clear date for termination
In a decision dated July 1, 2026 (No. 25-15.670), the Court of Cassation ruled on a case involving a personal assistant who stopped being available to her employer in 2013 but officially took notice of the termination in 2014. The court emphasized that the employment relationship continued legally until the date the termination notice was given, even though the employee was no longer available.Employment began in 2010
The case began in December 2010, when the employee was hired as a personal assistant by a private employer. Starting in July 2012, the employer stopped assigning work without formally ending the contract. The employee stopped being available on January 1, 2013, but the contract was not officially terminated until October 22, 2014.Appeal court date overturned
The Paris court of appeal had previously considered the termination date to be January 1, 2013, but the Court of Cassation overturned this decision. It affirmed that the notice of termination ends the contract on the date it is given, citing Article L. 1231-1 of the Labor Code, which defines the legal end of employment.Absence not a termination
The court clarified that an employee’s absence or lack of availability does not automatically end the employment contract. Employers may avoid paying wages if they can prove the employee is no longer available, but the legal end of the contract remains the date of the termination notice. The courts of first instance had limited back pay to the period of August to December 2012, which was not challenged.Importance of formal procedures
The ruling highlights the need for employers to formally terminate contracts rather than leaving them in an unresolved state. For employees, the notice of termination can be used to end a contract by citing serious faults, but it risks being seen as a resignation if those faults are not clearly justified. The court reaffirmed that time alone does not end a contract and that the legal end date cannot be set retroactively based on an employee’s absence.
