You live in London, New York or Dubai. Your French company employs one person in Paris, and one morning you receive an email asking for a rupture conventionnelle. The tone is polite, the request sounds simple, and the amount mentioned looks reasonable. Yet this single email opens one of the most technical procedures in French employment law, and every step you skip or rush can turn a friendly separation into a labour court dispute that you will have to defend from abroad. The good news is that the procedure is entirely predictable once you understand its logic: a mutual agreement with a legal price floor, a withdrawal period for both sides, and an administrative approval that alone makes the agreement valid. This article explains what your employee is really asking for, how to compute the severance floor without underpaying, how to get the agreement approved by the administration, and how to build a file that survives a challenge before the conseil de prud’hommes, the French labour court. It is written for a foreign founder or director who manages a French team remotely, and every French acronym is explained along the way.

I. What your employee is asking for: a mutual separation with a legal price tag

When a French employee asks for a rupture conventionnelle, they are not resigning and they are not asking you to dismiss them. They are proposing a third path created specifically for permanent contracts, known in France as CDI (contrat à durée indéterminée): a separation by mutual agreement, with negotiated compensation, that preserves their right to unemployment benefits paid by France Travail, the French public employment service. For the employee, it is usually the condition for leaving without losing income protection. For you as the employer, it is a way to part ways cleanly without running a dismissal procedure, provided you respect each formality. The two questions foreign employers always ask are how the discussion must be conducted and how much must be paid. Both have precise legal answers.

A. How the mutual agreement works when you negotiate from abroad

The starting point is article L1237-11 of the French Labour Code, which states that “Elle résulte d’une convention signée par les parties au contrat.” In other words, nothing exists until both sides sign a written agreement. The same article adds a sentence that governs the entire procedure: “La rupture conventionnelle, exclusive du licenciement ou de la démission, ne peut être imposée par l’une ou l’autre des parties.” You can read the full text of article L1237-11 of the Labour Code on Légifrance. Neither you nor the employee can force this outcome. If the employee refuses, you cannot convert the discussion into a dismissal without following dismissal rules, and if you refuse, the employee stays or resigns, with the consequences each option carries.

The law then organises the discussion itself. Article L1237-12 provides that “Les parties au contrat conviennent du principe d’une rupture conventionnelle lors d’un ou plusieurs entretiens au cours desquels le salarié peut se faire assister”, and it details who may assist each side. The full rule is published at article L1237-12 of the Labour Code on Légifrance. In a company with no staff representative body, which is the normal situation for a foreign-owned startup with one employee in France, the employee may be assisted by a conseiller du salarié, an outside adviser chosen from an official list drawn up by the administration. On your side, the rule is symmetrical: when the employee uses this right, you may also be assisted, by a person of your choice belonging to the company staff or, in companies with fewer than fifty employees, by a person from your employers’ organisation or another employer in the same sector. From abroad, the practical lesson is simple: never skip the meeting stage, hold at least one genuine discussion of the principle and the terms, note its date, and inform the employee in advance of their right to be assisted. A signature obtained after a surprise email with no prior discussion is exactly the kind of file that later looks like pressure.

Pressure is the central danger because consent must remain free. The Paris Court of Appeal recalled the framework in a decision of 21 May 2025 (RG 22/06770) concerning an employee who claimed she had been blackmailed into signing. The court restated the principle that a dispute existing when the agreement is signed does not by itself invalidate a mutual separation concluded under article L1237-11, while recalling that the separation cannot be imposed by either side. The court then set the only ground that can annul the agreement, namely a defect of consent such as mistake, duress or fraud, and it placed the burden of proof on the party alleging coercion, so an employee who claims pressure must prove it. In that case the employee lost because her evidence did not establish coercion, and the court confirmed the dismissal of all her claims. The lesson for a foreign employer is twofold. First, the mere fact that relations were tense, or that a dismissal was mentioned before, does not automatically kill the agreement. Second, everything you write before the signature can become evidence: do not link payment of a bonus to acceptance, do not present the mutual separation as the only alternative to a dismissal for misconduct, and keep a written record showing the employee had time, information and the possibility of being assisted. If you already chose your company vehicle with the help of our guide on choosing between a SAS, a SARL, a branch or a subsidiary in France, apply the same discipline here: the cheapest document is the one drafted carefully before signature, not the one defended later before a court.

B. How much you must pay: the severance floor and its computation

The second question is the amount, and here the law sets a floor, not a price. Article L1237-13 of the Labour Code states that “le montant de l’indemnité spécifique de rupture conventionnelle qui ne peut pas être inférieur à celui de l’indemnité prévue à l’article L. 1234-9”. The full provision is available at article L1237-13 of the Labour Code on Légifrance. Below that floor, the administration refuses approval and the agreement cannot live. Above it, the amount is freely negotiated, and in practice employees often obtain more than the minimum, especially when they hold a strategic position or when the employer wants speed and certainty.

The floor itself refers to the ordinary dismissal indemnity. Article L1234-9 provides that “Le salarié titulaire d’un contrat de travail à durée indéterminée, licencié alors qu’il compte 8 mois d’ancienneté ininterrompus au service du même employeur, a droit, sauf en cas de faute grave, à une indemnité de licenciement.” See article L1234-9 of the Labour Code on Légifrance. Two points matter for a foreign employer. First, an employee with less than eight months of continuous service has no statutory minimum under this reference, but agreeing on zero compensation is still a bad idea: the administration checks that consent was free, and a derisory amount invites a refusal. Second, the calculation method is set by regulation. Article R1234-2 states that “L’indemnité de licenciement ne peut être inférieure aux montants suivants : 1° Un quart de mois de salaire par année d’ancienneté pour les années jusqu’à dix ans ; 2° Un tiers de mois de salaire par année d’ancienneté pour les années à partir de dix ans.” The official text is at article R1234-2 of the Labour Code on Légifrance. Concretely, an employee with three years of service and a gross monthly reference salary of 3,500 euros has a legal floor of three quarters of a month, meaning 2,625 euros. With twelve years of service at the same salary, the floor is ten quarters plus two thirds, meaning a higher five-figure sum that surprises many foreign founders. Partial years also count: article R1234-1 provides that the indemnity is “calculée par année de service dans l’entreprise et tenant compte des mois de service accomplis au-delà des années pleines” and that “En cas d’année incomplète, l’indemnité est calculée proportionnellement au nombre de mois complets.” See article R1234-1 of the Labour Code on Légifrance.

Three corrections routinely change the result, and all three must be checked before you sign. First, the applicable collective bargaining agreement, the convention collective, often sets a higher dismissal indemnity than the statute, and the floor follows the higher of the two. The technology syntec agreement, the commerce agreements and the construction agreements, among others, contain their own formulas, so identify the agreement stated on the payslip and compute both versions. Second, the reference salary is not simply the last payslip: bonuses, commissions, overtime and benefits in kind can enter the base depending on their regularity, which is why the computation should be run by your French payroll provider, the gestionnaire de paie, rather than estimated from abroad. Third, the payslip treatment of the separation payment follows its own social and tax logic, with thresholds above which social charges and income tax apply differently than for ordinary salary. Ask your payroll provider for a net-versus-gross simulation before you promise any figure in writing, because an oral promise of a net amount that turns out to cost far more in gross terms is a classic source of disputes. The official service-public guide to the procedure, which describes each stage from the employee’s side, is a useful cross-check and is published at rupture conventionnelle of a private-sector employee on service-public.gouv.fr. For the employer’s operational view, the Ministry of Labour keeps a dedicated page at the mutual separation of a permanent contract on travail-emploi.gouv.fr.

II. From signature to a separation that survives: approval and court challenge

Signing is only the middle of the procedure, not the end. After signature, both sides may still withdraw, then the administration must approve, and only then does the contract end on the agreed date. Each of these stages has a deadline counted in a different unit, calendar days for one and working days for the other, and confusing them is the most frequent mistake foreign employers make. Once the separation takes effect, a twelve-month clock starts for any court challenge. This second part walks through the timetable and the litigation that follows when something went wrong.

A. How to get the agreement approved: withdrawal period, filing and deadlines

From the date both sides sign, article L1237-13 (article L1237-13 of the Labour Code on Légifrance) provides: “A compter de la date de sa signature par les deux parties, chacune d’entre elles dispose d’un délai de quinze jours calendaires pour exercer son droit de rétractation.” That right, the article continues, “est exercé sous la forme d’une lettre adressée par tout moyen attestant de sa date de réception par l’autre partie.” Calendar days include weekends and holidays, and the letter must prove its date of receipt, so registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt or hand delivery against signature remains the safest choice when you manage the file from abroad. During these fifteen days, nothing can be filed and nothing is final: either side may walk away with no reason and no cost.

Only after this period expires may the most diligent party file for approval, a step called homologation. Article L1237-14 states that “A l’issue du délai de rétractation, la partie la plus diligente adresse une demande d’homologation à l’autorité administrative, avec un exemplaire de la convention de rupture.” The complete approval regime is set out at article L1237-14 of the Labour Code on Légifrance. The filing is made online through TéléRC, the official portal for this procedure, or on the paper Cerfa form for those unable to use the online service, and it goes to the DDETSPP, the direction départementale de l’emploi, du travail, des solidarités et de la protection des populations, formerly known as the Direccte, of the place where the employee works. For an employee based in Paris, that means the Paris DDETSPP, and the Paris region forwards a large share of the national filings, so allow the full instruction time in your planning. The administration then has its own deadline: “L’autorité administrative dispose d’un délai d’instruction de quinze jours ouvrables, à compter de la réception de la demande, pour s’assurer du respect des conditions prévues à la présente section et de la liberté de consentement des parties.” Working days exclude Sundays and public holidays, which is a different count from the calendar-day withdrawal period. If the administration stays silent, the text provides that “A défaut de notification dans ce délai, l’homologation est réputée acquise et l’autorité administrative est dessaisie”, meaning approval is deemed granted. And the decisive sentence follows: “La validité de la convention est subordonnée à son homologation.” No approval, no valid agreement, whatever the parties signed and whatever was paid.

The employment end date written in the agreement must respect this architecture. Article L1237-13 states (same source): “Elle fixe la date de rupture du contrat de travail, qui ne peut intervenir avant le lendemain du jour de l’homologation.” In practice, count fifteen calendar days of withdrawal, then fifteen working days of instruction, and set the end date after that horizon; experienced advisers add a safety margin of several days because a filing rejected as incomplete restarts the administration clock. If the administration expressly refuses approval, usually because the severance is below the floor or because consent looks doubtful, the parties may sign a corrected agreement, but the Cour de cassation, the highest French court for labour matters, imposes a full restart. In its published judgment of 13 June 2018 (appeal no. 16-24.830), it held that after a first agreement is refused approval, the parties must be granted a fresh fifteen-day withdrawal period, failing which the second agreement is void. The decision, published au Bulletin as Cour de cassation, Social chamber, 13 June 2018, appeal no. 16-24.830, treats the corrected agreement as a fully new agreement with its own withdrawal clock. Keeping the old withdrawal expiry date on the second agreement, as the employer had done in that case, made the whole separation equivalent to a dismissal without real and serious cause, with back pay and damages. A recent Paris decision shows the mirror risk: on 8 January 2026 (RG 23/01394), the Paris Court of Appeal (RG 23/01394) recalled that the validity of the agreement depends on its approval and examined whether the employer could prove that the agreement had actually been submitted to the administration, the employee arguing that no approval had ever been sought and that a later settlement signed on that fragile basis was void. The practical message for a company run from abroad is blunt: file through TéléRC yourself or through your French counsel, keep the filing receipt, diary both deadlines in the correct units, and never pay the severance or announce the departure as final before approval is acquired or deemed acquired.

B. How to survive a challenge before the labour court within twelve months

Even an approved agreement can be challenged. Article L1237-14 closes with the limitation rule: “Le recours juridictionnel doit être formé, à peine d’irrecevabilité, avant l’expiration d’un délai de douze mois à compter de la date d’homologation de la convention.” See article L1237-14 of the Labour Code on Légifrance. Any dispute about the agreement, the approval or the refusal goes exclusively to the labour court, and after twelve months from approval the door closes. An employee who signed in January and discovers in June that colleagues received more, or who simply regrets the decision, must act within that year, and you should keep the complete file at least that long, in practice longer, since related pay claims can follow their own limitation periods.

When the challenge comes, the battlefield is narrow, and the Paris case law of 2025 shows exactly where it lies. As seen above, the Paris Court of Appeal held on 21 May 2025 (RG 22/06770) that a mere prior dispute does not invalidate the agreement, that only a defect of consent can annul it, and that the employee alleging coercion carries the burden of proof. Employees typically allege moral harassment, a sham economic threat, or a bonus held hostage to force the signature. These arguments fail without dated, specific evidence, and they succeed when the file shows real coercion, for example repeated summons with no genuine negotiation or written threats of dismissal for misconduct if the employee refuses. Your defence from abroad therefore depends on documents created before the dispute: the invitation to the meeting mentioning the right to be assisted, the signed agreement with coherent dates, proof that the severance met or exceeded the floor, the TéléRC filing receipt, and the approval or deemed approval. Payslips proving the reference salary, the collective agreement applied, and the payroll simulation given to the employee complete the picture. Courts also look at timing: an agreement signed the day after a disciplinary summons looks defensive, while an agreement signed after two documented meetings spaced over several weeks looks consensual.

Two further traps deserve attention because foreign employers fall into them regularly. The first is the side settlement. Some employers sign the mutual separation and, in the same week, a separate transaction paying extra compensation to buy peace over the whole employment relationship. The Paris Court of Appeal ruled on 8 January 2026 that an employee and an employer who have signed a separation agreement can validly settle only once the separation itself is secure, and a settlement built on an agreement whose approval was never proven collapses with it. Sequence the operations: approval first, complementary settlement afterwards, with distinct purposes stated in each document. The second trap is the protected employee. The standard procedure described here does not apply to employees with special protection, such as pregnant employees in certain periods, employees on maternity leave, staff representatives or employees holding a mandate: their separation requires the labour inspector’s authorisation instead of the standard approval: article L1237-15 provides that for protected employees, “la rupture conventionnelle est soumise à l’autorisation de l’inspecteur du travail” and that “la rupture du contrat de travail ne peut intervenir que le lendemain du jour de l’autorisation.” See article L1237-15 of the Labour Code on Légifrance. Using the ordinary TéléRC route for them produces a void agreement. If your single French hire has become a staff representative or has informed you of a pregnancy, stop and take advice before proposing anything. Finally, remember geography: disputes go to the labour court of the place of employment, so a Paris-based employee sues in Paris, witness statements follow French formalities, and hearings can often be handled through French counsel with you attending by videoconference where the court allows it. None of this requires you to move to France, but all of it requires a file that was built as if a judge would read it, because one day a judge might.

Conclusion

A rupture conventionnelle negotiated from abroad succeeds when it is treated as a formal procedure rather than a friendly handshake. Agree on the principle during at least one genuine meeting where the employee may be assisted, keep the discussion free of threats and document each step. Compute the severance floor from the real reference salary and the applicable collective agreement, applying a quarter of a month per year of service up to ten years and a third beyond, and negotiate above that floor rather than at it. Then respect the two clocks: fifteen calendar days of withdrawal after signature, fifteen working days of administrative instruction after filing with the DDETSPP through TéléRC, with the contract ending no earlier than the day after approval. Keep the filing receipt, diary the twelve-month challenge period, and build from day one the file a labour court would want to see: invitation, agreement, pay evidence, approval. Handled this way, the procedure gives both sides what they want, a funded departure with unemployment cover for the employee and a final, court-resistant separation for the company, without anyone needing to cross a border.