OD Flash | Collective redundancy plan: The French Supreme Court clarifies the jurisdiction of administrative and judicial judges.

French Supreme Court, December 11, 2024, No. 23-14.017

Pursuant to a decision dated December 11, 2024, the French Supreme Court clarified the respective jurisdictions of judicial and administrative judges in disputes regarding the validity and implementation of collective redundancy plan.

In this case, an employee who did not fall within the categories targeted by a collective redundancy plan implemented by her company sought to benefit from a voluntary departure scheme. This scheme was restricted to employees whose positions were to be eliminated based on selection criteria or the elimination of the professional category to which they belonged.

The employer offered the employee a voluntary departure, conditional upon finding a replacement for her position. As this condition was not met, the employer asked her to return to work, which she refused. Believing she had been wronged in the implementation of the plan, the employee brought a claim before the judicial courts and applies for the judicial termination of her employment contract. Meanwhile, the employer repeated its demand that the employee return to her position. When she continued to refuse, she was dismissed for serious misconduct.

The employee then brought a second claim before the labor court, contesting the termination of her contract and seeking judicial cancellation, while also claiming entitlement to the voluntary departure benefits provided under the collective redundancy plan.

The French Supreme Court was tasked with answering the following question: can an employee challenge the definition of professional categories under a collective redundancy plan validated by the administration and administrative courts before the judicial courts?

The French Supreme Court, after reiterating the administrative authority’s role under the control of the administrative judge in assessing the legality of the professional categories defined in the plan, answered in the negative. It clarified that when an employee challenges their exclusion from a voluntary departure scheme under a collective redundancy plan, they cannot contest the very definition of the professional categories provided in the plan before the judicial courts. Such challenges fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the administrative judge.

Since the Law of June 14, 2013, which transferred the competence to review the development process and content of collective redundancy plans to administrative courts, the jurisdictions of the two court systems have been delineated as follows:

• The Administrative Judge: Responsible for examining administrative decisions relating to the adoption of the collective redundancy plan, particularly ensuring its compliance with legal requirements regarding its content and the collective redundancy procedure, as provided under Article L.1235-7-1 of the French Labor Code.

• The Judicial Judge: Acts after the collective redundancy plan has been approved or validated, specifically in disputes concerning the implementation of the plan, including challenges to individual economic dismissals, the application of selection criteria for redundancy, and reclassification obligations (French Supreme Court April 20, 2022, No. 20-20.567).

In this decision, the French Supreme Court emphasized that under the guise of seeking the termination of her contract for alleged unfair implementation of the collective redundancy plan, the employee was effectively contesting the definition of professional categories, a matter exclusively within the purview of the administrative judge.

This ruling aligns with a strict jurisprudential trend aimed at reinforcing the separation of powers between judicial and administrative courts. It reaffirms that judicial judges lack jurisdiction to examine claims that, while ostensibly based on individual obligations or ancillary commitments, ultimately challenge the legality of the plan itself. By doing so, this decision mitigates the risk of “forum shopping” by parties.