French labour law - Dismissal of a CEO - employer's intention to prepare for his replacement not publicly expressed = no verbal dismissal (c. cass. March 26th 2025)

In a decision dated March 26th, 2025 (No. 23-23.625) published in the Bulletin, the Social Chamber of the Court of Cassation reaffirmed that, pursuant to Article L1232-6 of the French Labor Code, termination of an employment contract can only result, in the absence of a letter of dismissal, from an explicit and unequivocal act by the employer expressing its clear intention to terminate the contract, and notified in writing either directly to the employee or publicly.

In other words, as long as this intention has not been expressed beyond a limited and informal framework, it remains legally ineffective: a clear act by which the employer expresses its intention to terminate the employment contract is still required. Hearing a dispute relating to an alleged verbal dismissal based on emails exchanged between members of a company's management team, the court accepted the admissibility of these documents as evidence, but overturned the appeal decision for wrongly finding that the employment contract had been terminated without an explicit expression of the employer's intent.

The Court of Cassation partially overturned the decision of the Besançon Court of Appeal, emphatically reiterating the conditions under which a termination of an employment contract can be validly constituted.

It affirmed that termination can only result from an act by the employer expressly expressing its intention to terminate the employment contract, either to the employee or publicly.

However, the mere elaboration of a promise of employment in the context of internal discussions between the company president and the human resources manager does not constitute a public manifestation or an expression of intent to the employee concerned and therefore cannot constitute dismissal. Thus, the intention to dismiss, even if advanced and documented, cannot, in this case, amount to dismissal, and the employer retained the freedom to reverse its intention until formal notification of dismissal.

Therefore, the Court criticized the Court of Appeal for drawing excessive inferences from a preparatory act.

Regarding the evidence produced by the employee, the High Court upheld the Court of Appeal's assessment: obtaining the disputed communications did not result from any hacking or invasion of privacy: the communications took place on professional messaging systems and were part of the company's routine operations.

In this context, the evidence is deemed admissible.

To read the full brief, click on the link below.

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/intention-employeur-non-exprimee-publiquement-pourvoir-emploi-pas-licenciement,53152.html

Frédéric CHHUM avocat et ancien membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris (mandat 2019-2021)

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

.Paris: 34 rue Petrelle 75009 Paris tel: 0142560300

.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

.Lille: : 45, Rue Saint Etienne 59000 Lille – Ligne directe +(33) 03.20.57.53.24