OD FLASH | The internal regulations of the CSE cannot impose obligations on the employer that do not arise from legal provisions

Supreme Court, Social Chamber, March 26, 2025 – No. 23-16.219

As a reminder, under Article L. 2315-24 of the French Labor Code, the Social and Economic Committee (hereinafter CSE) sets out, in its internal regulations, the terms of its operation and its relations with the employees of the company, for the purpose of carrying out the missions assigned to it under Chapter II of Title I relating to the CSE. Unless the employer agrees, internal regulations cannot include provisions that impose obligations on the employer which do not arise from legal provisions.

In this case, the CSE of a company adopted a provision in its internal regulations providing, for the benefit of its members, that:

“The time spent participating in meetings, travel time, and delegation time shall be considered working time. In accordance with the principle of non-discrimination, the employer shall pay elected representatives long-distance travel allowances under the same conditions as for all other employees […] which in no way constitutes a burden or obligation not already provided for by the legislator.”

This provision was also replicated to benefit members of several committees and local representatives.

The employer, arguing that these provisions imposed obligations not arising from legal provisions, sought their annulment before the judicial court.

The Paris Court of Appeal, in a ruling dated February 16, 2023 (No. 21/05599), annulled the provision in application of Article L. 2315-24 of the Labor Code, deeming that it added to the legal and contractual obligations binding the employer.

The company’s CSE then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by the CSE and upheld the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal, ruling that:

• The employer was covering expenses directly related to the duties of the CSE members, such as travel, accommodation, and meal expenses, as determined by collective agreement.
• The activities and travel of the CSE members did not meet the eligibility conditions for long-distance travel allowances.

It thus confirmed the appellate court’s decision that the disputed provision increased the employer’s legal and contractual obligations, and that there was no evidence suggesting discrimination.

This ruling aligns with well-established case law from the Supreme Court on this issue. However, it is crucial for employers to exercise caution when drafting the CSE’s internal regulations. Indeed, this document becomes binding upon its entry into force and remains so until any contested provisions are annulled by a civil court. Until such annulment, the employer is therefore required to comply with these provisions, failing which they risk sanctions that could be deemed as obstruction (Cass. crim., June 8, 1995, No. 93-83.785).