On September 10, 2025, the Court of Cassation issued two landmark rulings regarding paid leave, aligning French law with European Union law and the case law of the CJEU. These decisions follow the judgments of September 13, 2023, which led to the adoption of the law of April 22, 2024.

1. Right to carry over paid leave in case of illness

From now on, an employee who falls ill during paid leave has the right to carry over the days of leave that coincide with their sick leave. This solution, imposed by Directive 2003/88/EC and the CJEU, distinguishes the purpose of paid leave (rest and leisure) from that of sick leave (recovery). To benefit from the carry-over, the employee must notify their employer, in accordance with the procedures provided for by the Labour Code and, where applicable, by the relevant collective agreement. 

This right to carry over aims to ensure that the employee can effectively benefit from their annual leave, in accordance with the objective of protecting the health and safety of workers.

The Ministry of Labour had already recommended this practice and advises compliance with the employee information procedure, namely, to inform the employee by any means within one month of their return to work:

• Of the number of days of leave to which they are entitled,
• Of the deadline by which these days of leave can be taken.

2. Inclusion of paid leave in the calculation of overtime

The Court of Cassation ruled that paid leave days must be included in the threshold for triggering overtime. Excluding these days from the calculation would have a deterrent effect on taking leave, contrary to Article 31 § 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

Thus, an employee may claim payment for overtime even if they have not worked 35 actual hours due to paid leave. This interpretation aims to ensure equal treatment among employees and to prevent taking leave from being financially penalized.

This solution applies to the weekly calculation of working time and does not prejudge other calculation methods. It is therefore necessary to check, for each situation, the specific rules applicable, particularly in the case of working time modulation or arrangements over a period longer than a week.

The employer may, as part of their management prerogative, implement an employee evaluation system, provided that the method is based on precise, objective, and relevant criteria with regard to the intended purpose. Behavioral criteria are only permitted if they are sufficiently precise, related to professional activity, and assessed objectively. The employer must ensure the transparency of the system and inform employees about the procedures and objectives of the evaluation, in order to guarantee respect for fundamental rights and to avoid any risk of discrimination or infringement of privacy. 

In a recent case, an employer had introduced individual interviews evaluating, in particular, employees' "ambition", "optimism", "honesty", and "common sense". A trade union challenged the legality of these criteria, considering them neither objective nor verifiable. The Court of Appeal found the system unlawful, a decision confirmed by the Court of Cassation on 15 October 2025. 

The High Court reiterated that employee evaluation must be based on precise, objective, and relevant criteria. The notions of optimism, honesty, and common sense were deemed too vague, moralizing, and subjective, without a direct and necessary link to professional activity. They therefore cannot constitute relevant criteria for assessing professional skills. The ruling emphasizes that evaluation should not focus on personal or moral qualities that fall within the private sphere, but on aptitudes and skills directly related to the performance of duties. 

The Court of Cassation confirmed the prohibition of the entire evaluation procedure, considering that the part relating to behavioral skills could not be separated from the rest of the system. This position aims to prevent unlawful criteria from tainting the validity of the entire process and to protect employees against arbitrary or discriminatory evaluation practices.

This decision illustrates the need for employers to handle behavioral criteria with caution when evaluating employees. Only criteria that can be assessed objectively and are related to professional activity are permitted, provided they are defined clearly and measurably.