In a ruling handed down on January 26, 2022[1], the Social Division of the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) declared that “the mere fact that the maximum working time has been exceeded gives rise to a right to compensation “.
In support of this decision, it appears that the mere fact of exceeding the 48-hour maximum working time entitles the employee to compensation.
In this ruling, an employee complained that the Court of Appeal had dismissed his claim for damages for violation of maximum working hours, on the grounds that he had not demonstrated the existence of any prejudice.
The employee then appealed to the French Supreme Court, claiming infringement of the provisions of article L. 3121-35 of the French Labor Code, as well as article 6 b) of directive 2008/88/EC of November 4, 2003.
Article L. 3121-35 of the French Labor Code transposes the aforementioned article of the Directive into domestic law. This article provides, in the version applicable to the dispute (prior to the law of August 8, 2016), that over the course of a single week, working hours may not exceed 48 hours.
In the past, the Court of Justice of the European Union has already ruled that exceeding the maximum average weekly working time set by the Directive constitutes a breach of this provision, without the need to demonstrate the existence of damage.
The French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) expressly referred to these rulings by the European Court of Justice, before going on to issue a similar ruling, stating in its operative part that ” the mere fact of having exceeded the maximum working time entitles the employee to compensation “.
Employers will therefore need to be particularly vigilant to ensure compliance with the maximum working hours set by the French Labor Code or the applicable collective agreement.
In addition to the necessary protection of employee health which requires compliance with such provisions, employers will automatically be liable to pay damages to their employees if these provisions are not complied with.
[1] Cass. soc. January 26, 2022, no. 20-21.636
