Guillaume Bordier – Virginie Pecorella
Remote working from France: a possible route under Visitor status
Under French immigration law, holders of a Visitor visa or residence permit are prohibited from carrying out any professional activity in France.
A recurring question in French immigration practice has been whether this prohibition also extends to remote work performed in France for a foreign employer. Given the inconsistent approaches adopted by various authorities, a parliamentary question was submitted to the Ministry of the Interior seeking clarification.
The Ministry first confirmed that business immigration categories are intended for individuals who participate in the French labour market and contribute to the French economy. These categories are not designed for individuals who wish to work exclusively remotely from France for a foreign employer.
The Ministry then indicated that a foreign individual residing in France, working remotely for his or her employer, with no connection to the French market and who is still remunerated and taxed in his or her home country can be eligible for Visitor status. Regulatory activities are excluded from this analysis.
While this clarification was intended to provide greater certainty, a number of questions remain. In particular, the Ministry appears to suggest that the individual must remain subject to tax on their employment income in their home country. However, Visitor status may be granted for one year and subsequently renewed, potentially resulting in the individual becoming tax resident in France. In these circumstances, employment income would become taxable in France rather than in the worker’s home country.
Furthermore, this potential immigration route for remote workers addresses immigration status only. It does not resolve the broader issues that may arise from working remotely from France, including social security obligations, employment law considerations, personal income tax consequences, and possible permanent establishment risks for the foreign employer.
French court reaffirms the conditions for disregarding A1 certificates
In a decision dated 9 June 2026, the French Supreme Criminal Court revisited the circumstances under which French authorities and courts may disregard A1 certificates issued by another EU Member State in the context of posting of workers.
A Spanish company had posted employees to agricultural operations in France. Following inspections by the French Labour Inspectorate and French authorities responsible for the collection of social security contributions (URSSAF), the company produced A1 certificates issued by the Spanish authorities for the posted workers.
During its investigation, however, URSSAF identified specific elements suggesting that the certificates may have been obtained fraudulently and requested the Spanish authorities to reconsider and assess the validity of those A1 certificates.
The Court recalled established EU case law, according to which A1 certificates are binding on the institutions and courts of the host country for as long as they have not been withdrawn or declared invalid by the issuing authority.
The French Supreme Court confirmed that the host country’s courts may disregard A1 certificates where:
- the host country has formally initiated the administrative dialogue and cooperation procedure under the EU Regulations;
- the host country has provided evidence of fraud; and
- the issuing authority fails to reassess the situation within a reasonable period of time.
The Court also provided important guidance on what constitutes an effective review by the issuing authority. In accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation, simply confirming that an A1 certificate remains valid is not sufficient if the issuing authority does not address specific evidence of fraud provided by the host Member State’s authorities. In those circumstances, the review cannot be regarded as a genuine reassessment.
This decision confirms both the binding nature of A1 certificates and the issuing authority’s exclusive competence to assess their validity. However, it also reiterates that an exception may arise where there is evidence of fraud and the issuing authority fails to carry out a genuine and substantive reassessment of the certificates.
