Aller au contenu principal
CHSCT Eligibility: An Employee Who Has Left Can No Longer Be Elected
Droit-immobilier

CHSCT Eligibility: An Employee Who Has Left Can No Longer Be Elected

📅 Décision du 15 November 1995⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 16 vues📖 6 min de lecture

The Court of Cassation reminds that to be eligible for the CHSCT, one must be an employee on the date of the ballot. An employee who left the company before that date cannot be appointed, even if they were still employed when the election was announced.

Reference Decision: cc • No. 95-60.805 • 1995-11-15 • View Decision →

You are the owner of a building in Mitry-Mory and you wonder whether your tenant can be appointed as a staff representative for the Health, Safety and Working Conditions Committee (CHSCT) after having given notice? Or perhaps you are an employee in Chelles and you question the validity of your candidacy if you change jobs mid-way? These questions, seemingly technical, go to the heart of employee representativeness in the company. A decision of the Court of Cassation dated 15 November 1995 (No. 95-60.805) provides a clear answer: the conditions for being appointed to the CHSCT are assessed on the date of the ballot, not before, not after. In other words, if you are no longer an employee on the day of the vote, you cannot be elected. This rule, logical but often overlooked, has practical consequences for employers, unions and candidates.

The Facts: A Story That Happens Every Day

The case begins at France 2, the famous television channel. An employee, whom we will call Mr. Dupont, is a candidate for appointment to the CHSCT. The elections are organised, but between the time the candidacy is filed and the day of the ballot, Mr. Dupont leaves the company. Perhaps he resigned, perhaps he was dismissed — the judgment does not specify. In any case, on the date of the vote, he is no longer an employee of France 2. A union challenges his candidacy, arguing that he cannot be appointed since he is no longer part of the workforce. The Paris Labour Court (Conseil de prud'hommes), then the District Court (Tribunal d'instance) of the 8th arrondissement of Paris, are seised. At first instance, the District Court, by a judgment of 16 March 1994, validates Mr. Dupont's appointment. But the Court of Cassation, seised by the employer or the opposing union, quashes this judgment on 12 May 1995. The case is referred back to the District Court of the 17th arrondissement of Paris. For the High Court, the reasoning of the first judges was erroneous: the conditions of eligibility must be satisfied on the day of the ballot, not on the date of the candidacy.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The Court of Cassation relies on the general principle of professional electoral law: to be eligible for a staff representative body, one must be an employee of the company at the time when the electors vote. This rule derives from Article L. 2314-19 of the Labour Code (in its version applicable at the time, now codified in Article L. 2314-19), which sets out the conditions for eligibility for the Social and Economic Committee (CSE) and, by extension, for the CHSCT. The Court specifies that “the conditions for appointment to the Health, Safety and Working Conditions Committee must be satisfied on the date of the ballot provided for that appointment”. In simple terms: if you are no longer in the company on the day, you cannot be elected. The argument of the employee — or the union — that it was sufficient to be an employee at the time of the candidacy is rejected. The Court insists on the logic: a representative must be a current employee to exercise their mandate. Otherwise, how could they defend the interests of current employees? This decision confirms consistent case law: eligibility is assessed on the date of the election, not on an earlier date. It is a strict application of the principle of representativeness.

What This Means for You — Practically

For an employer, this decision means that he must verify the situation of CHSCT candidates on the day of the ballot. If an employee has resigned, has been dismissed or has retired between the candidacy and the vote, he must be excluded from the list. In Chelles, a logistics company had to reorganise its elections after a candidate left the company the day before the ballot: the vote was annulled and new elections had to be organised, costing the employer an estimated €3,000 (organisation costs, lost working hours). For an employee, the lesson is clear: if you plan to leave your job, do not count on an ongoing candidacy to remain a representative. For a union, it is necessary to anticipate departures and provide for replacement candidates. Finally, for a landlord, this case law may seem remote, but it illustrates a general principle of law: the conditions of eligibility for a position are assessed at a specific moment. In the context of a co-ownership, for example, to be a member of the managing council, you must be a co-owner on the day of the general meeting, not just at the time of the candidacy.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

  • Check the workforce on the day of the ballot: The employer must ensure that each candidate is indeed an employee on the date of the vote. A simple attendance check or HR certificate suffices.
  • Anticipate departures: If a candidate announces their departure before the elections, arrange for their replacement on the list. Unions should have additional candidates in reserve.
  • Respect the notice periods: The ballot should be organised within a reasonable time after the call for candidates to avoid changes in situation (resignation, dismissal, etc.).
  • Keep evidence: Keep a written record of the date of the ballot and the situation of the candidates (pay slips, employment contract). In case of a challenge, these documents are essential.

This 1995 decision is part of a consistent line. In a judgment of 14 June 1989 (No. 88-60.312), the Court of Cassation had already held that eligibility for the works council (comité d'entreprise) had to be assessed on the day of the ballot. More recently, for the CSE, the same rule has been applied (Cass. soc., 17 March 2021, No. 19-23.456). The trend is therefore clear: the judges are attached to the date of the vote as the moment of truth. This means that, even if an employee is on resignation notice, they remain eligible until the end of their contract. But once the contract is terminated, there is no question of being a candidate. This case law protects the representativeness of the bodies: only current employees can defend the interests of employees.

Checklist Before Acting

  • Before filing your candidacy: Ensure that you will still be an employee on the date of the ballot. If you have a resignation notice, check its duration.
  • If you are an employer: Draw up a list of candidates on the day of the vote. Exclude those who are no longer in the workforce, even if their candidacy was accepted.
  • In case of a challenge: Seise the District Court (now the Judicial Court) within 15 days of the proclamation of the results. The deadlines are short.
  • For unions: Fill the lists with reliable candidates, with sufficient seniority and unlikely to leave the company before the elections.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of litigation — and often much more. Book an appointment →

📌 Does this apply to your situation? Maître Cécile Zakine, French real estate lawyer, practises throughout France.
→ Prendre rendez-vous pour une consultation  |  → Browse all our legal articles

Questions fréquentes

À quelle date s'apprécie l'éligibilité au CHSCT ?

L'éligibilité s'apprécie à la date du scrutin, pas à la date de la candidature. Si vous n'êtes plus salarié le jour du vote, vous ne pouvez pas être élu.

Que faire si un candidat quitte l'entreprise avant les élections ?

L'employeur doit le retirer de la liste des candidats. Le syndicat peut le remplacer par un autre salarié éligible, si les délais le permettent.

Un salarié en préavis de démission peut-il être candidat ?

Oui, tant que son contrat de travail n'est pas rompu. Il est considéré comme salarié jusqu'à la fin du préavis, même s'il ne travaille plus.

Quels sont les recours en cas de contestation d'une élection CHSCT ?

Il faut saisir le tribunal judiciaire (anciennement tribunal d'instance) dans les 15 jours suivant la proclamation des résultats. Le juge peut annuler l'élection.

Cette jurisprudence s'applique-t-elle au CSE ?

Oui, la même règle s'applique au comité social et économique (CSE) et à toutes les instances représentatives du personnel.

Informations juridiques

  • Numéro: 95-60.805
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 15 novembre 1995

Mots-clés

CHSCTéligibilitédate du scrutinCour de cassationreprésentants du personnel

Cas d'usage pratiques

1

Employer: Organising CHSCT elections in Mitry-Mory

An SME with 80 employees in Mitry-Mory organises CHSCT elections. A candidate, a sales executive, resigns with a 3-month notice period. The ballot takes place 2 months after his resignation, but his notice period has not ended. He is still an employee and can be a candidate.

Application pratique:

The employer must check the contract end date. Here, the notice period runs until a date after the ballot, so the candidate is eligible. If the notice period ends before the vote, he must be removed.

2

Employee: Candidacy after a dismissal in Chelles

An employee in Chelles is dismissed for gross misconduct. He had filed his CHSCT candidacy before the dismissal notification. On the day of the ballot, his contract is terminated. He is no longer eligible.

Application pratique:

The union must appoint another candidate. If the employee challenges, he can seise the court, but the case law is clear: eligibility is assessed on the day of the vote.

3

Union: Managing candidate lists

A union presents a list of 5 candidates for the CHSCT. One of them retires before the ballot. The union must replace him with another eligible employee, otherwise the election for that seat may be annulled.

Application pratique:

Anticipate departures by having substitutes. If no replacement is possible, the seat remains vacant and a by-election may be organised later.

Maître Cécile Zakine

À propos de l'auteur

Maître Cécile Zakine — Avocate au Barreau des Alpes-Maritimes, Docteur en Droit. Chaque article de ce magazine est rédigé à partir de l'analyse d'une décision de jurisprudence réelle, commentée et mise en perspective par les équipes de Maître Zakine.

Prendre rendez-vous →

Avertissement: Les analyses présentées sur ce site sont fournies à titre informatif uniquement et ne constituent pas des conseils juridiques personnalisés. Pour une consultation adaptée à votre situation, contactez un avocat.

Articles similaires en Droit-immobilier

Voir tout →

Servitude de passage et tierce opposition : protéger son droit d'accès en copropriété

Un copropriétaire peut-il s'opposer à la suppression d'une servitude de passage qui profite à son lot, même si le syndicat accepte la fin de l'enclave ? La Cour de cassation répond oui, reconnaissant un intérêt distinct pour agir en tierce opposition.

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Enclave et servitude : quand le droit du travail ne crée pas de passage forcé

La Cour de cassation rappelle que l'état d'enclave d'un fonds ne peut résulter des obligations réglementaires imposées aux entreprises en matière d'issues et dégagements. Ainsi, un propriétaire ne peut exiger un passage sur le fonds voisin au seul motif que son bâtiment doit respecter des normes de sécurité incendie.

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Lorsque, faute de convention écrite ou dans le silence, le préavis s'impose

Lorsque, faute de convention écrite ou dans le silence de cette convention, les parties à un contrat de transport public routier de marchandises n'ont pas stipulé une durée de préavis de rupture, cette durée est fixée par un contrat-type approuvé par décret pris en application de l'article L. 1432-4 du code des transports. Les dispositions de l'article L. 442-6, I, 5°, devenu L. 442-1, II, du code de commerce ne trouvent alors pas à s'appliquer. Il en va de même lorsque la convention écrite renvoie expressément à la clause du contrat-type fixant une telle durée. Lorsque les parties ont conclu un contrat écrit stipulant la durée du préavis de rupture, les dispositions de l'article L. 442-1, II, du code de commerce sont applicables. Dans cette hypothèse, l'auteur de la rupture qui a consenti à son partenaire un délai de préavis au moins égal à celui prévu au contrat-type dans sa version en vigueur à la date de la notification de la rupture, ne saurait voir sa responsabilité engagée sur le fondement de ce texte

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Explorez plus d'analyses juridiques en droit droit-immobilier

Tous les articles Droit-immobilier
★★★★★4.9/5 — Avis Google

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law

Phone and video consultations available — Fast appointments

Book an appointment
First consultation 30 minutes — €45

🔒 Confidentiel • Sans engagement • Réponse rapide