This is one of the most eagerly awaited decisions of the new term in labor law, and more specifically in administrative labor law. In a ruling dated October 2, 2026, with opinions by Montgolfier (No. 511609, 4th and 1st Chambers sitting jointly—see excerpts), the Council of State has reinstated the Auchan Group’s PSE, which had been overturned by the Lille Administrative Court and then the Douai Administrative Court of Appeal.
The three key takeaways:
A PSE agreement may be concluded at the group level, even if the companies comprising the group do not constitute a single economic unit (UES). The conditions regarding majority and representativeness are then assessed at the level of all companies included within the scope of the agreement.
The information provided to the Social and Economic Committee (CSE) is limited to the selected industry sector. When a company belongs to a group, the employer must inform the CSE about the situation in the industry sector it has selected and the reasons for that choice. The employer is not required to provide information on other sectors. In this case, the holding companies Acanthe, Valorest, and Cimofat did not belong to the retail sector. The lack of data regarding them therefore did not render the consultation invalid, and the Works Council did not have to rule on the issue of joint control.
Important reminder: The relevance of the selected sector cannot be challenged at the validation stage, as the economic justification falls solely within the jurisdiction of the court hearing the dismissal case (strict separation of jurisdictional powers).
Health and Safety: The Central Role of the Majority Agreement. The administration must verify that the risks associated with the reorganization have been identified and that specific and concrete measures have been planned. It must place particular emphasis on the fact that these measures are included in a majority agreement. The failure to specifically update the DUERP is not sufficient to invalidate the approval.
Other Useful Clarifications
- The administration is not required to verify whether the CSE was sufficiently informed of the environmental consequences as part of the approval process.
- The argument that the administration failed to verify the status of the signatories is invalid.
- The DREETS, when presented with a request for an injunction, is not required to disclose to the CSE the information obtained from the employer. The procedure is therefore valid.
In practice, this decision provides certainty for PSE plans negotiated at the group level. It also confirms that the choice of business sector, once justified to the CSE, defines the scope of the information owed to the employee representative bodies (IRPs). For employers, the majority agreement is confirmed as a valuable tool, including in the area of risk prevention.
