Transport Levy: Must Employers with More Than 9 Employees Pay?
Droit-immobilier

Transport Levy: Must Employers with More Than 9 Employees Pay?

📅 Décision du 14 June 2001⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 5 vues📖 6 min de lecture

The Constitutional Council has upheld the obligation for employers with more than 9 employees located in a commune or urban community with more than 20,000 inhabitants to pay the transport levy. This 2001 decision confirms the compulsory nature of this contribution, collected like social security contributions.

Reference Decision: cc • No. 99-20.984 • 2001-06-14 • View the decision →

Picture the scene: you are the manager of a small joinery company in Vénissieux, in the Lyon metropolis. You employ 10 employees. One day, you receive a letter from URSSAF demanding several thousand euros in respect of the 'transport levy'. Except you have never heard of this tax, and you wonder if it is legal. I have seen this situation dozens of times in my practice.

Because the question is simple: can an employer be forced to pay a contribution to finance public transport, without even having voted for it? The answer is yes, since a decision of the Constitutional Council in 2001. But be careful, it all depends on the size of the company and the population of the commune.

In this article, I will explain clearly what this decision changes for you, whether you are a landlord, tenant, or business owner. And I will give you practical advice to avoid nasty surprises, with concrete examples in Écully or Vénissieux.

The Facts: A Story That Happens Every Day

The case that led to this decision of the Constitutional Council (the highest French court for checking the conformity of laws) begins with a company, Société Projet, whose registered office was located in the territory of the urban community of Lille. This urban community, like many others, had established by a deliberation (a decision of the council) the 'transport levy'. In short, a compulsory tax for employers with more than 9 employees, intended to finance public transport (buses, metro, tram).

Société Projet employed more than 9 employees. It received a recovery notice from URSSAF (the body that collects social security contributions) for the transport levy. The company challenged this: it considered that this contribution was not compulsory, or that its amount was excessive. The case was brought before the courts, and the question was then referred to the Constitutional Council to determine whether the law authorising this levy was in conformity with the Constitution.

The Constitutional Council, in its decision of 14 June 2001, upheld the principle. It held that the transport levy could be levied in any commune or urban community with more than 20,000 inhabitants, on any employer employing more than 9 employees. Once a local authority has instituted it, this levy becomes compulsory, just like social security contributions. For Société Projet, this meant it had to pay, with no possibility of avoiding it.

The Reasoning of the Court — Explained

The Constitutional Council relied on Article L. 2333-64 of the General Code of Local Authorities (the text that allows communes and urban communities to institute this levy). But above all, it recalled a fundamental principle: the transport levy, although similar to a tax, is in reality a compulsory contribution that applies to all employers within its scope. In other words, it is not optional.

The judges also specified that recovery by URSSAF was no accident: it means that employers who do not pay face the same penalties as for social security contributions (late payment penalties, enforcement proceedings). However, be careful: the decision only concerns communes with more than 20,000 inhabitants or urban communities with the same threshold. If you are in a small rural commune, this levy does not apply.

What few people know is that this decision confirmed a practice already in force for several years. But it put an end to legal uncertainty: some employers challenged the legality of the transport levy by arguing that it was a disguised tax. The Constitutional Council ruled: it is a compulsory contribution, justified by the general interest of financing transport.

What This Changes for You — Concretely

If you are an employer (business owner, craftsman, trader) and you employ more than 9 employees, you must check whether your commune or urban community has instituted the transport levy. For example, in Écully, a commune in the Lyon metropolis, the transport levy is applicable. An employer with 12 employees and an annual payroll of €400,000 will have to pay about 1.2% of this payroll, i.e., €4,800 per year. For a small business, this can be heavy.

If you are a landlord, this decision does not directly concern you, unless you rent premises for professional use. Indeed, the transport levy is owed by the employer, not the landlord. But be careful: if you own an office building and your tenant is a company, that company will have to pay the transport levy, which may indirectly increase its rent.

For tenants, nothing changes: you are not liable. But if you are an employee, know that the transport levy cannot be deducted from your salary. It is the sole responsibility of the employer.

Finally, if you are a co-owner of a building with commercial premises, the co-ownership is not liable, but each tenant company must declare and pay its own transport levy.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

  • Check the population threshold of your commune: Go to the URSSAF website or your urban community. If your commune has fewer than 20,000 inhabitants, the transport levy does not apply, unless an urban community has instituted it.
  • Calculate your workforce precisely: The threshold of 9 employees is assessed on 1 January of each year. If you have 10 employees in January, you are liable for the whole year, even if you have 8 for the rest of the time.
  • Declare and pay on time: The transport levy is collected by URSSAF via the social security nominative declaration (DSN). Late payment results in penalties of 5% to 10%.
  • Consult a specialist lawyer if you challenge it: In my practice, I have come across cases where employers have been reassessed for non-payment. A challenge before the judicial court can be considered, but the chances of success are low since this decision.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This decision of the Constitutional Council is part of a consistent line of authority. For example, the Council of State, in a judgment of 28 July 2000 (No. 202837), had already held that the transport levy was a compulsory contribution, even in the absence of an express deliberation by the commune, as long as the urban community had instituted it. The 2001 decision merely confirms this position at the constitutional level.

Since then, the law has evolved: the population threshold has been reduced to 20,000 inhabitants (previously 30,000), and the rate can vary from 0.55% to 2.95% depending on population density. The courts are very strict: if URSSAF finds a failure to declare, reassessment is almost automatic. For the future, it is likely that the transport levy will be extended to communes with fewer than 20,000 inhabitants, as is already the case for some urban communities.

Summary and Next Steps

FAQ:

  • Q: Does the transport levy apply to my company if I am in Vénissieux?
    A: Yes, Vénissieux is part of the Lyon metropolis, which has instituted the transport levy. If you have more than 9 employees, you must pay.
  • Q: Can I refuse to pay if I challenge the deliberation?
    A: No, payment is compulsory. You must pay first, then challenge it before the judicial court. But the chances of annulment are very low.
  • Q: What are the applicable rates in Écully?
    A: For the Lyon metropolis, the rate is 1.2% of the payroll (2023 rate). Check each year as it may be amended by deliberation.
  • Q: What if I have not declared for several years?
    A: Contact URSSAF to regularise. You may benefit from a payment schedule. But beware of late payment penalties that can reach 40% in case of an audit.
  • Q: Does my commercial tenant have to pay the transport levy?
    A: Yes, it is for them to declare and pay it. You are not responsible as the landlord.

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

📌 Does this apply to your situation? Maître Cécile Zakine, French real estate lawyer, practises throughout France.
→ Avocat droit du travail  |  → Browse all our legal articles

Questions fréquentes

Le versement transport s'applique-t-il à mon entreprise si je suis à Vénissieux ?

Oui, Vénissieux fait partie de la métropole de Lyon, qui a institué le versement transport. Si vous avez plus de 9 salariés, vous devez payer.

Puis-je refuser de payer si je conteste la délibération ?

Non, le paiement est obligatoire. Vous devez d'abord payer, puis contester devant le tribunal judiciaire. Mais les chances d'annulation sont très faibles.

Quels sont les taux applicables à Écully ?

Pour la métropole de Lyon, le taux est de 1,2 % de la masse salariale (taux 2023). Vérifiez chaque année car il peut être modifié par délibération.

Que faire si je n'ai pas déclaré depuis plusieurs années ?

Contactez l'URSSAF pour régulariser. Vous pouvez bénéficier d'un échéancier. Mais attention aux majorations qui peuvent atteindre 40 % en cas de contrôle.

Mon locataire commercial doit-il payer le versement transport ?

Oui, c'est à lui de le déclarer et le payer. Vous n'êtes pas responsable en tant que propriétaire.

Informations juridiques

  • Numéro: 99-20.984
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 14 juin 2001

Mots-clés

versement transportemployeur 9 salariésURSSAFcontribution transportscommune 20000 habitants

Cas d'usage pratiques

1

Employer in Vénissieux with 10 employees

Mr Martin runs a plumbing company in Vénissieux. He employs 10 employees and has never heard of the transport levy. URSSAF is demanding €5,000 from him for the last three years.

Application pratique:

Mr Martin must pay, because the Lyon metropolis has instituted the levy. He can request a payment schedule from URSSAF. Henceforth, he must declare and pay each month via the DSN.

2

Landlord in Écully

Mrs Dupont rents a commercial premises in Écully to a consulting company with 15 employees. She is worried about being liable for the transport levy.

Application pratique:

Mrs Dupont is not liable. It is her tenant, as the employer, who must pay. She can include a clause in the lease informing the tenant of this obligation.

3

Craftsman in Lyon with 8 employees

Mr Durand, a cabinetmaker in Lyon, has 8 employees. He receives a notice from URSSAF asking him to pay the transport levy.

Application pratique:

Mr Durand is not liable because he has fewer than 9 employees. He must challenge the notice with URSSAF by proving his workforce. Beware: if his workforce increases to 9 during the year, he will have to pay.

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

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