Since the entry into force of Law 2016-1691 of December 9, 2016, known as the "Sapin II Law," supplemented by the law of March 21, 2022, whistleblowers (lanceurs d’alerte) benefit from a specific protection framework (Law 2016-1691 of December 9, 2016, relating to transparency, the fight against corruption, and the modernization of economic life).
An employee cannot be penalized, dismissed, or subjected to discriminatory measures for reporting a concern in accordance with Articles 6 to 8 of Law No. 2016-1691 of December 9, 2016, except in cases of bad faith, which can only be established by the employee's knowledge of the falsity of the facts they are reporting, or when they act in a self-serving manner, for a purpose unrelated to the public interest.
This is what the Court of Cassation affirmed in a judgment of March 18, 2026 (24-10.993) published in the official bulletin.
III. Ruling.
The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal.
First, the court reiterated the whistleblower protection regime and the conditions for benefiting from it, as stipulated in Article L1132-3-3 of the French Labor Code and Law No. 2016-1691 of December 9, 2016.
The court held that the employee was entitled to whistleblower status since he had, in good faith and selflessly, reported a serious threat to the public interest, in this case, an alert concerning environmental risks.
In this ruling, the highest court also addressed the issue of extending the term of office of elected members of the Works Council (CSE).
The court reiterates that this extension can only occur if it was granted before the end of the term of office under the conditions stipulated by the order of September 22, 2017.
The court thus upholds the Court of Appeal's ruling, which stipulated that an employee whose term of office has not been properly extended cannot claim the extension or benefit from the associated period of protection.
IV. Analysis.
This decision helps clarify the conditions for applying the protective status of whistleblowers established by the so-called "Sapin II" law.
The stakes are high, since whistleblower status is a prerequisite for benefiting from the guarantees offered by the law, particularly regarding protection against retaliation.
The court methodically reiterates the conditions to be met to qualify for whistleblower status, specifying each element.
The court emphasizes, firstly, that the report must concern facts covered by Article 6 of the Sapin II Law, namely, a serious threat or harm to the public interest, of which the employee must have personal knowledge.
The court then stresses the necessity of making a report in good faith. It clarifies the scope of this obligation by specifying what constitutes bad faith.
The highest court specifies that bad faith is characterized in restrictive situations:
• When the employee was aware that the reported facts were false;
• When the employee acted for a purpose unrelated to the public interest.
The Court of Cassation upheld the reasoning of the Court of Appeal, which had found, firstly, that the internal reporting procedure stipulated in Article 8 of the Sapin II Law had been followed. Indeed, the Court of Appeal found that the employee had properly reported the alert to his superiors and had recorded and signed it in the alert log.
The Supreme Court also upheld the Court of Appeal's reasoning, which found that the alert concerning the environmental risks associated with the proposed site for travelers was in the public interest, regardless of whether the project itself was also in the public interest.
This ruling is consistent with established case law, which strictly defines the concept of bad faith, reiterating that it cannot be inferred solely from the fact that the reported facts were not proven [1]. The case law of the Social Chamber thus conducts a rigorous analysis to assess the conditions for qualifying as a whistleblower.
Furthermore, the decision addresses a second issue concerning the consequences of an irregular extension of a term of office. Indeed, this irregularity deprives the employee of an extension of their protections, particularly against dismissal.
In this decision, the issue concerned the limitation of the compensation awarded for the violation of protected status. The employee sought payment of compensation equal to the remuneration they would have received until the expiration of the protected period.
However, the Court of Cassation drew the consequences of the absence of an extension under the legal conditions before the end of the term of office.
It specified, in fact, that the employee could not claim an extension of their term of office and a protected period until that date, plus six months.
This ruling is consistent with a line of case law, as evidenced by the decision of March 18, 2026, issued on the same day (No. 24-16.192). In this decision, the court rigorously applies the rules regarding the extension of a mandate and reaffirms the principle that an extension cannot be valid if it is granted after the mandate has expired.
Sources.
- Cass. Soc., 18 mars 2026, n°24-10.993
- Cass. Soc., 13 sept. 2023, no 21-22.301
- Cass. Soc., 18 mars 2026, n°24-16.192
- Loi n°2016-1691 du 9 décembre 2016 relative à la transparence, à la lutte contre la corruption et à la modernisation de la vie économique (1) Légifrance
- Lanceurs d’alerte : quelle protection ?
To read all the article, please click on the link below
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
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
Pas de contribution, soyez le premier