OD FLASH A reimbursement clause requiring an employee to repay the additional cost of a company car does not restrict the employee’s freedom to resign.

Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, 3 June 2026, n°25-11.373

An employee had been provided with a company car. However, she chose a more expensive model than the one covered by her employer, in exchange for the payment of a “differential contribution” corresponding to the additional leasing cost.

Following her resignation, the employer sought reimbursement of the remaining lease payments due until the end of the vehicle leasing agreement. The employee challenged this claim, arguing that the clause infringed upon her freedom to resign and amounted to an unlawful financial penalty.

The French Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decision rejecting these arguments. It noted that the employee had freely chosen a vehicle exceeding the benefit financed by the employer and had agreed to bear the corresponding additional cost. The Court also found that the amount claimed did not constitute a penalty linked to the termination of the employment contract but merely represented the outstanding portion of the lease payments attributable to the vehicle selected by the employee.

The Court further emphasized that the employee had not been effectively prevented from terminating her employment contract, as she had in fact resigned thirteen months after signing the amendment.

Lastly, the Court held that the additional cost resulting from the employee’s personal choice of a more expensive vehicle did not constitute an accessory to the employment contract that would automatically cease to have effect upon termination. Consequently, the reimbursement obligation remained enforceable against the employee after the end of the employment relationship.Accordingly, a clause requiring an employee to bear the additional cost resulting from the choice of a more expensive company car is not, in itself, contrary to the employee’s freedom to resign. Where the amount claimed merely reflects the financial counterpart of the employee’s own choice, rather than a penalty triggered by the termination of employment, the employer may recover that amount even after the employment contract has ended.