FROMONT BRIENS

[ARTICLE] Secondment and intra-group international mobility, 2026/06/03

The internationalisation of career paths has never been so pronounced. Between secondments, expatriation, cross?border remote working, nomadic work and new forms of mobility, both companies and employees are operating in a legal environment that is constantly evolving.

To support companies through these changes, the International Mobility team at Fromont Briens, led by lawyers Sophie Pélicier-Loevenbruck, Pierre Sandres, Thomas Baudoin, Charles Dumel and Pierre Pomerantz, has launched the first edition of its newsletter dedicated to international mobility.

Below, you can find one of the articles from this inaugural issue (available here): In a decision, the Social Chamber of the French Supreme Court applies the rules governing employee secondment under the so-called Cherpion Act to a case of intra-group international mobility. The outcome extends the application of French employment law to an employment relationship performed abroad, regardless of the existence of a local employment contract.

***

Application of the employee secondment regime to intra-group international mobility

French Supreme Court (Social Chamber), 18 February 2026, No. 24?14.172

In this case, an employee hired by a French parent company was assigned to a mission within an Azerbaijani subsidiary. The arrangement involved both an amendment to the French employment contract and the conclusion of a local employment contract with the subsidiary.

Following the subsidiary’s decision to terminate the assignment and the parent company’s initiation of dismissal proceedings, the employee brought a claim before the French labour court seeking judicial termination of the employment contract, alleging breaches of French rules on working time, rest periods and the duty of care.

The French Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s application of the Cherpion Act secondment regime (Article L. 8241-2 of the French Labour Code) and held in particular that:

- the lending company (the French parent) remained the effective employer throughout the assignment abroad; 

- the employment contract with the parent company was not suspended; 

- the local employment contract with the host subsidiary did not preclude the application of French statutory and collective bargaining provisions, including during the expatriation period; 

- claims relating to overtime and breach of the duty of care could therefore validly be brought against the parent company and justify judicial termination at its expense, with the effects of an unfair dismissal, provided the breaches were established.

This outcome is surprising, given that the secondment rules refer to provisions under which responsibility for working conditions — including working time, health and safety — generally lies with the user entity.

However, the Supreme Court inferred from the absence of suspension of the French employment contract (which is inherent to the Cherpion Act secondment mechanism) that the French parent company was required to ensure compliance with French law by its subsidiary, including with respect to working time.

This decision directly challenges the legal framework of international mobility, as it effectively “exports” French labour law to the employee’s working relationship within the foreign subsidiary.

In practice, the Supreme Court’s application of non-profit labour lending rules results in the primacy of French law over local law, even where French working time requirements are incompatible with the subsidiary’s operating model.

This raises a fundamental question: what room remains for expatriation arrangements under French employment law where the French employment contract is not terminated?

It is unclear whether contractually providing for suspension of the French employment contract would, on its own, be sufficient to exclude the application of French rules on working time, pay, and other employment conditions.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the reasoning in this ruling could mean that any expatriation arrangement not involving termination of the French employment contract would effectively be absorbed into the Cherpion Act regime, significantly hindering international mobility from France.

This was likely not the Supreme Court’s intention, and the specific facts of the case — including an extreme working pattern of 35 days on / 35 days off with a nominal 84?hour working week that was not even respected — clearly weighed heavily in the decision.

Nonetheless, this case law strongly encourages international mobility teams to thoroughly review their expatriation addendum templates and to remove or soften any indicators that might trigger the application of the Cherpion Act secondment regime.

***

Did you find this article of interest? Our International Mobility newsletter offers analyses that are accessible, practical and immediately useful.

To receive future editions, please contact us at: communication@fromont-briens.com