French employment law - Reclassification of a service contract as an employment contract = 5-year statute of limitations (cass soc September 16th, 2026, 25-12.147)

When a party raises a statute of limitations defense, it is up to the judge, after respecting the principle of adversarial proceedings, to determine the legally applicable statute of limitations, even when it has not been raised by the parties.

This is what the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) affirmed in a judgment of September 16, 2026 (No. 25-12.147), published in the Bulletin.

It also specifies that an action seeking recognition of the existence of an employment contract, when the legal nature of the contractual relationship is contested, falls under the five-year statute of limitations of Article 2224 of the French Civil Code.

The significance of this ruling lies in the clarification it brings to the judge's role regarding statutes of limitations: the judge cannot raise a statute of limitations issue on their own initiative, but must determine the applicable time limit once a party raises a statute of limitations defense.

This ruling clarifies the distinction between raising a statute of limitations issue on their own initiative and determining the applicable time limit.

In principle, Article 2247 of the Civil Code prohibits the judge from raising a statute of limitations defense on their own initiative.

This means that the judge cannot decide on their own initiative that an action is time-barred if no party invokes it.

However, once a party invokes the statute of limitations, the judge cannot limit themselves to the time limit mentioned by that party.

They must determine the legally applicable time limit, subject to the principle of adversarial proceedings.

The ruling is also relevant to the classification of an action for recognition of an employment contract.

The Court of Cassation considers that this action, when the classification of the contractual relationship is contested, falls under Article 2224 of the Civil Code and is therefore subject to a five-year statute of limitations.

This ruling distinguishes actions seeking recognition of the very existence of an employment contract from actions directly related to the performance or termination of an employment contract, for which Article L1471-1 of the Labor Code provides specific time limits.

The main contribution of the ruling thus lies in defining the judge's role: the judge cannot raise the statute of limitations himself, but must determine the legally applicable time limit when a party invokes it.

The ruling thus constitutes an important clarification of the judge's role in matters of statute of limitations and reiterates that the legal classification of the applicable time limit does not depend on the time limit invoked by the parties.

Sources.

Cour de cassation, chambre sociale, 16 septembre 2026, n° 25-12.147

Requalification d’un contrat de prestation de services d’une Directrice en contrat salarié + surcharge de travail et manquement à l’obligation de sécurité = résiliation judiciaire (CPH Paris 10/10/ 2023, non def) [1]

Contrat de prestation de services requalifié en contrat de travail : les honoraires contractuels perçus par le prestataire lui restent acquis

Requalification d’un contrat "freelance" de professeur d’anglais en contrat de travail.

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