OD FLASH | URSSAF Assessment Based on an Enrollment Decision: A URSSAF assessment based on a decision to enroll an employee in the general social security system is valid even if the affected employees were not joined as parties to the case

Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre civile 2, 4 juin 2026, 23-18.882, Publié au bulletin – Légifrance

In this case, following an audit, URSSAF reinstated into a company’s contribution base the amounts paid to elite athletes tasked with promoting its brand, on the grounds that the athletes in question were classified as models under the Labor Code, thereby making them subject to mandatory enrollment in the general social security system. After URSSAF issued a payment order against the company, the company filed an objection with a court handling social security disputes. The Court of Appeals dismissed the company’s objection and ordered it to pay the contributions, upholding the classification of the activity as modeling due to the existence of a relationship of subordination in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

The Court of Cassation dismissed the company’s appeal, in which it criticized the Court of Appeals for having ruled even though the judges had not named the athletes in question as parties to the proceedings, despite the fact that the dispute concerned the classification of their contractual relationship and their individual enrollment in the social security system. In doing so, it made a highly notable reversal by putting an end to the procedure requiring the individual appeal of each affected worker to be joined to the case before the court where the company had filed a challenge to a URSSAF assessment.

It noted that its previous case law (Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, March 9, 2017, No. 16-11.535 P) required such a summons in accordance with the principle that no one may be judged without having been heard or summoned pursuant to Article 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the Court of Cassation notes that this rule raises significant difficulties in practical application, issues of jurisdiction, and divergences in assessment from one court to another that are likely to affect legal certainty and the proper administration of justice. Consequently, the Court of Cassation has decided to depart from its previous case law.

It now establishes the rule that when a court hearing a dispute over an adjustment to social security contributions is seized of the matter, it shall rule only on the legality and merits of said adjustment. If, in assessing the merits of the adjustment, the court is required to verify whether the workers in question are subject to the general social security system, it does not rule on their enrollment in that system; consequently, it is not required to join the affected individuals or other social security agencies as parties to the proceedings.

The failure to join the workers as parties therefore no longer constitutes an obstacle to examining the validity of the reassessment. In this case, the Court of Appeals was not required to order that the athletes in question be joined as parties. The Court of Cassation clarifies, however, that this development does not preclude the contributor from joining the workers to the proceedings on its own behalf to defend its interests, nor does it preclude the judge from ordering any investigative measures to assess the actual conditions under which the activity was carried out.

In a similar effort to simplify the process, the Court of Cassation ruled on the same day that, in the event of a challenge to a URSSAF reassessment, the court is no longer required to join the executive whose situation is being examined with respect to membership rules (Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, June 4, 2026, No. 23-20.189).