A clause imposing a financial charge that deters an employee from resigning is unlawful : it amounts either to a prohibited financial penalty or to a restriction on the freedom to resign, which is valid only where it is justified by the nature of the task and proportionate to the aim pursued. The right for an employee to terminate their contract unilaterally is a matter of principle, so any clause weighing on it must be handled with care. But a charge is not unlawful where it simply reflects the consideration for a benefit the employee freely chose.
In this case, an addendum required the employee, after resigning, to bear part of the cost of leasing her company car until the end of the lease (a balance of €15,787). The Court of Cassation upheld the Court of Appeal’s finding that there was no interference with her freedom to resign, on three grounds : she had chosen a vehicle worth more than the benefit her employer had promised, and had agreed to pay the excess ; the sum claimed corresponded exactly to the lease rentals still due until the end of the contract ; and she had not in fact been prevented from resigning, having done so thirteen months after signing the addendum.
The charge was therefore neither a penalty nor an impediment on her freedom to resign, but the consideration for an advantage she had herself sought. Because it flowed from a personal choice, the extra leasing cost was not an accessory to the employment contract and survived its termination, notwithstanding the return of the vehicle.
Cass. soc., 3 June 2026, no. 25-11.373
