Background
JCB Aero employed M. [G] [N] as its industrial director beginning in February 2012 and dismissed him in January 2018. He filed proceedings before the labor tribunal seeking relief concerning the performance and termination of his employment contract, including compensation for dismissal without real and serious cause, overtime and related paid leave, mandatory rest, and concealed employment. He also challenged the validity or effectiveness of his annual working-days arrangement.
After conciliation failed on March 25, 2019, the conciliation and orientation panel established a schedule, in the parties’ presence, requiring the employee to file his submissions by April 25, 2019. Because he did not comply, the adjudication panel removed the case from its docket on October 14, 2019. The employee requested restoration to the docket on January 28, 2021, but did not file his first submissions until September 13, 2021. The Agen Court of Appeal held that the proceedings had expired for inactivity, and the employee appealed to the Court of Cassation.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal and upheld the finding that the proceedings had expired. Under Article 386 of the Code of Civil Procedure, proceedings expire when neither party performs a required procedural act for two years. The Court clarified that this period begins when the parties have actual knowledge of the procedural steps imposed on them; when the court fixes a deadline for such a step, the two-year period begins upon that deadline’s expiration, provided the parties actually knew both the required step and the deadline.
Here, the employee’s deadline for filing submissions expired on April 25, 2019, so the inactivity period ran until April 25, 2021. His January 28, 2021 request to restore the removed case to the docket did not interrupt that period. Because he filed his first submissions only on September 13, 2021, the proceedings had already expired. The Court therefore upheld the appellate judgment on this substituted legal ground, even though the Court of Appeal had incorrectly calculated the period from the filing of the original claim.
Key Takeaways
- In French labor proceedings, the two-year inactivity period begins when parties actually know what procedural action is required of them; if a deadline is fixed, the period begins when that deadline expires.
- Once the labor tribunal expressly schedules exchanges of submissions and evidence, failure to comply can trigger expiration of the proceedings even though the procedure is generally oral.
- A request merely to restore a case to the docket after its removal did not interrupt the inactivity period where the employee still failed to file the required submissions in time.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes ordinary labor proceedings, in which the parties generally need not exchange written submissions before the hearing, from cases in which the tribunal has imposed a specific case-management obligation. When such an obligation and its deadline are known, counsel must calculate the two-year period from the deadline’s expiration.
The ruling also shows that seeking restoration of a removed case may not preserve it. A party must perform a procedurally useful act demonstrating an intention to advance the dispute, particularly the specific act the tribunal required.