frederic.chhum

Par frederic.chhum le 29/09/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 2 semaines 6 jours

Should the industrial tribunal convictions be understood in gross or net when the judgment does not specify anything? This is the question to be answered by the Court of Cassation.

In a decision of July 3rd 2019 (No. 18-12149) published in the Bulletin, the Court of Cassation states that when "the decision on which the prosecution was based did not decide on the attribution of social contributions and social contributions", the employer must proceed to the prepayment of the contributions and social contributions owed by the employee on the sentence pronounced.

1) Background

Sums of a wage nature are subject to social security contributions. As a result, before they are paid to the employee, the employer must deduct the compulsory contributions and social contributions.

Conversely, those of a compensatory nature are exempt from social contributions within the limits provided for in Article L.242-1 of the Social Security Code.

This difference of nature may raise a difficulty at the time of the execution of a labor tribunal conviction.

Indeed, in the absence of precision in the judgment, the question arises as to whether the sentence is expressed in gross or in net.

On this point, in a decision of 19 May 2004, the Court of Cassation had held that in the absence of an express provision in the appeal judgment on the possibility of deducting from social security contributions the amount of the sentence, the conviction was in favor of the employee (Cass Soc 19 May 2004, No. 02-42447).

Nevertheless, in the decisions of 19 May 2016 and 16 May 2018, the Court of Cassation considered that if the judge had not pronounced expressly on the attribution of the social contributions, the sentence was necessarily expressed in gross (Cass. May 19, 2016, No. 15-10954 and Cass., May 16, 2018, No. 16-26448).

2) Facts and procedure

In this case, an employee is hired by a company in 2000. She is dismissed thirteen years later and files suit with the labour tribunal.

By a decision of March 30, 2016 of the labor court, the company is condemned to pay him various sums:

- As a reminder of overtime and related paid vacation;

- As compensation for dismissal without cause real and serious.

The company pays the employee a sum corresponding to the convictions handed down after deduction of the compulsory social contributions.

The employee has a command issued and an attachment is made to the employer's bank account.

The latter then seized a judge of the execution of a dispute tending to see that the conviction amounted to a gross sum.

An appeal is lodged by the employer who wishes to have the order to pay null and terminate the seizure.

To dismiss his claims, in a judgment of December 14, 2017, the Court of Appeal retained that:

- The employee has made a request for a conviction in net and not in gross and that the labor court has been seized of such a request;

- That no provision requires a court to pronounce all convictions on the same basis, all in net or all in gross.

Thus, the Court of Appeal of Paris considered that by granting right without further details to the request of the employee, the industrial tribunal, which did not dismiss the claim of the employee who wished to obtain a net indemnity, pronounced a clear sentence.

The company has appealed in cassation.

3) Solution and analysis

On the approval of Articles R. 121-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures and Article 1351 of the Civil Code as drafted prior to the order of 10 February 2016, the Court of Cassation breaks the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

She asserts that the Paris Court of Appeal, which "found that the decision on which the prosecution was based did not decide on the attribution of contributions and social contributions", has, under the guise of interpretation, modified the decision submitted to him.

It concludes that in the absence of details on the attribution of social charges "the employer had to proceed to the prepayment of sums due by the employee on the sentence pronounced".

This decision is a confirmation of case law that allows for a necessary clarification.

Sources

c. cass. July 3rd 2019, n°18-12149

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000038762759&fastReqId=348708199&fastPos=1

                                     

Article L.242-1 du Code de la sécurité sociale :

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000037074487&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006073189&dateTexte=20180901

Cass. Soc. May 19th 2004, n°02-42447 :

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000007484478

Cass. Soc. May 19th, 2016, n°15-10954 :

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000032559846

Cass. Soc. May 16th, 2018, n°16-26448 :

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000036947268&fastReqId=29990986&fastPos=1

 

Frédéric CHHUM, lawyer and member of the Paris Bar Council (conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris)

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

.Paris: 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris tel: 0142560300

.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083

 

Par frederic.chhum le 29/09/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 2 semaines 6 jours

Dans un arrêt du 19 mai 2004, la Cour de Cassation avait jugé qu’en l’absence de disposition expresse dans l’arrêt d’appel sur la possibilité de déduire des cotisations sociales du montant de la condamnation, la condamnation était nette au profit du salarié (Cass. Soc. 19 mai 2004, n°02-42447).

Néanmoins, dans les arrêts des 19 mai 2016 et 16 mai 2018, la Cour de Cassation a considéré que si le juge ne s’était pas prononcé expressément sur l’imputation des contributions sociales, la condamnation était nécessairement exprimée en brut (Cass. Soc. 19 mai 2016, n°15-10954 et Cass. Soc. 16 mai 2018, n°16-26448).

Pour lire l’intégralité de la brève, cliquez sur le lien ci-dessous.

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/prud-hommes-les-condamnations-sont-brut-defaut-indication-contraire-cass-soc,32547.html#vWebL3iToh08VD5Q.99

Frédéric CHHUM, avocat et membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

.Paris: 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris tel: 0142560300

.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083

 

Par frederic.chhum le 26/09/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 3 semaines 1 jour

California ratified Wednesday a law requiring Uber to pay in January 2020 drivers who used the digital platform. In France, the transformation of "uberisation", this economic model based on independent workers, is underway.

In its article entitled Towards the end of "uberisation" ?, the Journal quotes Frédéric CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes Lille) as follows:

"A real atomic bomb for the platforms" since "the Court of Cassation decided in this case the question of the existence of a link of subordination uniting the delivery person by bike to Take Eat Easy", summarizes on his blog the lawyer Frédéric Chhum, specialist in labor law.

To read the article, click on the link below:

https://www.lejdd.fr/Economie/vers-la-fin-de-luberisation-3920808

To read or reread our article, "Take Eat Easy": a bicycle delivery man is employed according to the Court of Cassation! click on the link below

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/take-eat-easy-livreur-velo-est-salarie-selon-cour-cassation-cass-2018,30125.html#fZPhudt8xoVLb5Ts.99

 

Frédéric CHHUM, avocat and member of the Paris Bar Council (Conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris)

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

.Paris: 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris tel: 0142560300

.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083

Par frederic.chhum le 26/09/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 3 semaines 1 jour

La Californie a ratifié mercredi une loi obligeant Uber à salarier en janvier 2020 les chauffeurs qui utilisaient la plateforme numérique. En France, la transformation de "l'ubérisation", ce modèle économique qui repose sur des travailleurs indépendants, est en cours.

Dans son article intitulé Vers la fin de l'ubérisation ? le JDD cite le cabinet Frédéric CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille) comme suit :

"Une véritable bombe atomique pour les plateformes" puisque "la Cour de cassation tranche dans cet arrêt la question de l'existence d'un lien de subordination unissant le livreur à vélo à Take Eat Easy", résume sur son blog l'avocat Frédéric Chhum, spécialiste en droit du travail.

Pour lire l’article, cliquez sur le lien ci-dessous :

https://www.lejdd.fr/Economie/vers-la-fin-de-luberisation-3920808

Pour lire ou relire notre article, "Take Eat Easy" : un livreur à vélo est salarié selon la Cour de cassation ! cliquez sur le lien ci-dessous
https://www.village-justice.com/articles/take-eat-easy-livreur-velo-est-salarie-selon-cour-cassation-cass-2018,30125.html#fZPhudt8xoVLb5Ts.99

Frédéric CHHUM, avocat et membre du conseil de l'ordre des avocats de Paris

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

.Paris: 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris tel: 0142560300

.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083

Par frederic.chhum le 21/09/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 4 semaines 30 min

In its decisions of June 19th 2019 (n° 18-22897), the Court of Cassation recalled that "a party to a Mutual agreed termination may validly exercise its right of withdrawal when it addresses to the other party , within fifteen calendar days, a letter of withdrawal ".

It concludes that the letter of withdrawal, "addressed to the employee before the expiry date of the deadline", was to have effect, the employer having acted in good time.

Such decision resumes that made with respect to employees in 2018 (Cass.soc, February 14, 2018, n° 17-10035).

By this decision, the Court of Cassation thus harmonizes the conditions of retraction of the employee and the employer.

To read the entire Article, please click on the link below.

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/rupture-conventionnelle-precisions-cour-cassation-sur-droit-retractation,32484.html#d4CDdRoKiEPThuZ3.99

 

• Cass.soc, June 19, 2019, n ° 18-22897

• Cass.soc, February 14, 2018, No. 17-10035

• Article L. 1237-13 (Labor Code)

 

Frédéric CHHUM, lawyer and member of the Paris Bar Council (conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris)

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

.Paris: 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris tel: 0142560300

.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083

Par frederic.chhum le 21/09/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 4 semaines 1 heure

Dans son arrêt infirmatif du 19 juin 2019 (n°18-22897), la Cour de cassation a rappelé « qu’une partie à une convention de rupture peut valablement exercer son droit de rétractation dès lors qu’elle adresse à l’autre partie, dans le délai de quinze jours calendaires, une lettre de rétractation ».

Elle en déduit que la lettre de rétractation, « adressée au salarié avant la date d’expiration du délai », devait produire ses effets, l’employeur ayant agi en temps utile.

Cette décision reprend celle rendue à l’égard des salariés en 2018 (Cass.soc, 14 février 2018, n° 17-10035).

Par cet arrêt, la Cour de cassation harmonise ainsi les conditions de rétractation du salarié et de l’employeur.

Pour lire l’intégralité de l’arrêt, cliquez sur le lien ci-dessous.
https://www.village-justice.com/articles/rupture-conventionnelle-precisions-cour-cassation-sur-droit-retractation,32484.html#d4CDdRoKiEPThuZ3.99

Source :

Cass.soc, 19 juin 2019, n°18-22897 Cass.soc, 14 février 2018, n° 17-10035 Article L. 1237-13 (Code du travail)

Frédéric CHHUM, avocat et membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

.Paris: 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris tel: 0142560300

.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083

Par frederic.chhum le 16/09/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 mois 2 jours

Le 16 septembre 2019, Maître Frédéric CHHUM a été interviewé au journal TV de 9h00 par la chaîne de télévision RT FRANCE sur la manifestation des avocats concernant le projet de régime de retraite universelle.

Pour visionner la vidéo, cliquez sur le lien ci-dessous.

https://twitter.com/RTenfrancais/status/1173528366412161025?s=20

Frédéric CHHUM, avocat et membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

.Paris: 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris tel: 0142560300

.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083