You moved to Lyon, Bordeaux or Paris on a British passport, found an employer who wants you, and assumed the hardest part was over. Then the letter arrives from the préfecture, meaning the local office of the French State that decides who may stay and work: your application for a work permit has been refused, your carte de séjour salarié, meaning the temporary residence card marked “employee”, will not be issued or renewed, and you have thirty days to leave France. Since Brexit, this is the ordinary legal position of British citizens in France. You are no longer a European Union citizen with a directly effective right to work. You are a third-country national, and your right to do your job depends on a prior administrative permission called the autorisation de travail, meaning the work authorisation, coupled with the right residence card. Lose one and you generally lose the other, and the same envelope often contains an obligation de quitter le territoire français, meaning the formal order to leave French territory universally shortened to OQTF. This guide explains, in plain English and with the exact legal texts, when a British employee genuinely needs that permission, why préfets refuse it, how to challenge the refusal and the removal order before the tribunal administratif, meaning the administrative court, and what your employer owes you even if the paperwork was never in order. It is written for British readers living and working in France after Brexit, and every French term is explained the first time it appears.

I. Why British employees need a French work permit and a salarié card, and how refusals happen

A. Do I need an autorisation de travail as a British citizen working in France?

Before Brexit, the answer was no. A British citizen exercised a European treaty freedom, walked into a French job, and registered like any French colleague. Since the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, the answer is yes in almost every case. The British government itself tells its nationals in its official guidance on living in France that they now need a visa or residence permit to settle, work or study, and the French side applies the ordinary third-country-national regime set out in the Code du travail, meaning the Labour Code, and the CESEDA, meaning the Code on the Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the Right of Asylum. Two instruments matter, and they must not be confused. The first is the autorisation de travail, the prior permission to do a salaried job. The second is the carte de séjour, the residence card that lets you lawfully live in France. For employees, the two are chained together: no work permission, no employee card, and no employee card, no lawful stay.

The Labour Code states the starting rule in blunt terms. Article L. 5221-2 of the Code du travail provides: “Pour entrer en France en vue d’y exercer une profession salariée, l’étranger présente : 1° Les documents et visas exigés par les conventions internationales et les règlements en vigueur ; 2° Un contrat de travail visé par l’autorité administrative ou une autorisation de travail.” In other words, a foreigner coming to France for salaried work must show either a contract approved by the administration or a work authorisation. For a British citizen already living in France, the twin provision is article L. 5221-5 of the Code du travail: “Un étranger autorisé à séjourner en France ne peut exercer une activité professionnelle salariée en France sans avoir obtenu au préalable l’autorisation de travail […]” Even a Briton who holds some other residence document cannot simply take a salaried job without that prior permission. The consequence is practical and immediate: if your employer lets you start work while the file is still pending, both of you are acting unlawfully, and the protection this article was meant to organise never attaches.

Your employer’s duty is active, not passive. Article L. 5221-8 of the Code du travail provides: “L’employeur s’assure auprès des administrations territorialement compétentes de l’existence du titre autorisant l’étranger à exercer une activité salariée en France, sauf si cet étranger est inscrit sur la liste des demandeurs d’emploi tenue par l’institution […]” A serious French employer therefore checks with the administration before your first day, and keeps proof of the check. If you are a British candidate and the company tells you “we will sort the papers later”, treat that as a red flag: the official service-public.fr procedure for the autorisation de travail d’un salarié étranger makes clear that the employer files the request online and that hiring before the answer exposes the business to sanctions, while leaving you without a valid title. The United Kingdom side confirms the same logic in reverse: gov.uk guidance on travel to France for work warns British nationals that short business trips and actual employment obey different rules, and that working for a French employer requires the French immigration route to be completed first.

Once the work authorisation exists, the residence card can follow. Article L. 421-1 of the CESEDA provides: “L’étranger qui exerce une activité salariée sous contrat de travail à durée indéterminée se voit délivrer une carte de séjour temporaire portant la mention […] salarié […] d’une durée maximale d’un an. La délivrance de cette carte de séjour est subordonnée à la détention préalable d’une autorisation de travail, dans les conditions prévues par les articles L. 5221-2 et suivants du code du travail […]” For a permanent contract, known in France as a CDI, meaning a contract without an end date, the card says salarié and lasts up to one year. For a fixed-term contract, called a CDD, meaning a contract with a defined end date, or a posting to France, article L. 421-3 of the CESEDA provides the parallel card: “L’étranger qui exerce une activité salariée sous contrat de travail à durée déterminée ou qui fait l’objet d’un détachement conformément aux articles L. 1262-1 […], L. 1262-2 et L. 1262-2-1 du code du travail se voit délivrer une carte de séjour temporaire portant la mention […] travailleur temporaire […] d’une durée maximale d’un an.” Note the chain in both cases: the card is “subordonnée à la détention préalable d’une autorisation de travail”, meaning it is conditional on already holding the work authorisation. British applicants sometimes believe that a signed CDI with a Lyon start-up or a Paris finance house is itself the right to stay. It is not. The contract is the evidence; the autorisation de travail is the permission; the carte de séjour salarié is the title you show at every control.

Three common British situations illustrate the rule. First, the new arrival: you are hired from London, the employer files for an introduction of a foreign worker, and you must wait for the authorisation before the consulate issues the long-stay visa that becomes your first salarié card. Second, the person already in France on another status, such as a passeport talent, a student card or a family card, who changes job or whose status changes: a fresh authorisation tied to the new post is normally required. Third, the long-settled Briton whose card is expiring: renewal of the salarié card means showing that the employment condition is still met. Timing matters here as the courts insist on it. The Cour de cassation, the highest French court for employment and private-law disputes, held in Social Chamber, 29 November 2023, No. 22-10.004 (ECLI:FR:CCASS:2023:SO02131) that “Il résulte de la combinaison de ces textes qu’un étranger, titulaire d’une carte de résident, doit, pour bénéficier du délai de trois mois lui permettant, après expiration de son titre, de conserver son droit d’exercer une activité professionnelle, en solliciter le renouvellement dans les deux mois précédant cette expiration.” A late renewal file can therefore cost you the very right to keep working while the administration decides. British employees who treat renewal as an administrative formality discover too late that French law treats the calendar as part of the right itself.

B. My employer applied and the préfet said no — what does the refusal letter actually mean?

The refusal almost never arrives alone. The standard préfet decision against a British employee is a bundle: refusal of the autorisation de travail, refusal or refusal to renew the carte de séjour salarié, an OQTF giving thirty days to leave, an order fixing the country of return, and frequently a one-year ban on coming back, called an interdiction de retour sur le territoire français, meaning a re-entry ban. A real case before the Lyon administrative court of appeal shows the anatomy. In CAA Lyon, 7th Chamber, 5 June 2025, No. 24LY01592, the file concerned a man who asked the Grenoble court to annul precisely such a bundle: “M. B… A… a demandé au tribunal administratif de Grenoble d’annuler l’arrêté du 5 mars 2024 par lequel le préfet de l’Isère a refusé de lui délivrer un titre de séjour, l’a obligé à quitter le territoire français dans un délai de trente jours, a fixé le pays de destination, l’a interdit de retour sur le territoire français pour une durée d’un an.” Replace Grenoble with Créteil, Rhône with Bouches-du-Rhône, and you have the letter many British employees open with shaking hands. Each element of the bundle must be challenged on its own ground, because annulling the refusal does not automatically annul the removal order, and vice versa.

Why do préfets refuse? The Labour Code regulations, in particular article R. 5221-20 of the Code du travail, ask the administration to examine the employment situation, the salary level, the reality of the post and the employer’s compliance record. In practice, British files fail for a handful of recurring reasons. The salary sits below the threshold the administration expects for the post. The job description looks decorative next to the company’s real activity, so the post is judged artificial. The employer has recent convictions for undeclared work or has failed to pay the specific tax due on foreign hiring, called the taxe employeur. The company’s advertising of the vacancy, where required, is missing or unconvincing. Or the file is simply incomplete: a British degree without a certified translation, a missing criminal-record extract, an employment contract that contradicts the application form on dates or hours. None of these reasons is Brexit-specific, but Brexit made them apply to Britons for the first time, and many British applicants discover the system only through a refusal drafted in dense administrative French.

A second, crueller pattern is the withdrawal of an authorisation already granted. You receive the permission, you start work, and months later the préfecture re-examines the file and takes it back. French public law treats an individual permission as a right-creating decision, called a décision créatrice de droits, which the administration can normally withdraw only within four months and only under strict conditions set by articles L. 242-1 and L. 242-2 of the Code des relations entre le public et l’administration, meaning the Code governing relations between the public and the administration. The Toulouse administrative court of appeal examined exactly this scenario in CAA Toulouse, 2nd Chamber, 6 May 2025, No. 24TL02559, where the applicant argued “en procédant plus de quatre mois après son édiction au retrait de l’autorisation de travail qu’il s’était vu délivrer le 10 août 2023, laquelle constitue une décision créatrice de droits, le préfet de Vaucluse a méconnu les articles L. 242-1 et L. 242-2 du code des relations entre le public et l’administration en refusant de lui délivrer le titre de séjour qu’il sollicitait en qualité de salarié”. For a British reader, the lesson is concrete: keep the dated proof of every permission, because the date on the paper decides whether the administration was still entitled to change its mind. An authorisation dated 10 August cannot lawfully be re-examined from scratch in March without the administration answering the four-month rule.

The same bundle usually hides a legal error British applicants are well placed to exploit: the absence of a genuine personal examination. The administration must look at your file as a person, not stamp a template. In the Lyon case (CAA Lyon, 5 June 2025, No. 24LY01592), the applicant’s central complaint was precisely that “le préfet n’a pas procédé à l’examen de sa situation professionnelle et a entaché sa décision de refus de délivrer un titre de séjour d’une erreur de fait, quant à la demande d’autorisation de travail présentée par son employeur”. An erreur de fait, meaning a factual error, happens when the refusal says your employer never applied while the online receipt proves it did, or describes a part-time contract as full-time, or relies on a salary figure from an outdated pay slip. An erreur manifeste d’appréciation, meaning a manifest error of assessment, happens when the facts are right but the conclusion is indefensible, for instance refusing a senior software engineer on pay that plainly exceeds the going rate. Reading the refusal letter line by line against your own file is therefore not pedantry; it is where cases are won. If the letter says the post does not exist, produce the employer’s registration, the office lease and the payslips of the French colleagues doing the same job. If it says the salary is insufficient, produce the sector agreement, called the convention collective, meaning the industry-wide pay bargain, and the employer’s pay grid.

Finally, understand what the OQTF inside the envelope does to your daily life. Article L. 611-1 of the CESEDA lists the situations in which “L’autorité administrative peut obliger un étranger à quitter le territoire français”, including where “L’étranger, entré sur le territoire français sous couvert d’un visa désormais expiré […] s’est maintenu sur le territoire français sans être titulaire d’un titre de séjour” and where “L’étranger s’est vu refuser la délivrance d’un titre de séjour, le renouvellement du titre de séjour […] ou s’est vu retirer un de ces documents”. A refused British employee falls squarely under the third case. The order gives you, in the standard form, thirty days of so-called voluntary departure, called départ volontaire, during which you may in theory organise your affairs, but it also flags you in every police file, and it authorises detention and forced removal once the period expires. Do not treat the thirty days as a cooling-off period. It is the deadline for your legal challenge, and missing it can make the order enforceable while you are still writing to your MP.

II. How to challenge the refusal, keep your job and recover what you are owed

A. How do I challenge a work permit refusal, a salarié card refusal and an OQTF?

French law gives you three tools, and they work on different clocks. The first is the informal appeal to the authority itself, called a recours gracieux, meaning a free reconsideration request addressed to the préfet who signed the refusal, or to the minister above, called a recours hiérarchique. It costs nothing, it sometimes corrects an obvious factual error, and it extends the time limit for court action only if it is filed within two months of the refusal. Use it when the error is documentary: the missing translation has now arrived, the employer’s online receipt was overlooked, the pay figure was misread. Write in French, number your exhibits, called pièces, and keep proof of sending. But never rely on it alone when an OQTF is attached, because the removal order keeps running while the préfet takes months to answer a polite letter.

The decisive tool is the court challenge before the tribunal administratif, the administrative court of the département that issued the order. Against an OQTF with thirty days to leave, the appeal is the recours contentieux with a strict forty-eight-hour or thirty-day filing regime depending on the exact form of the order, and the judge can suspend removal. Plead every ground the file supports: lack of personal examination, factual error on the work-authorisation request, manifest error on salary or the reality of the post, breach of the four-month withdrawal rule where a granted permission was taken back, and violation of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, meaning your right to private and family life, where you have a partner, children in French schools or years of settled life. Attach the employer’s application receipt, the contract, the pay slips, the convention collective extract, proof of the family’s presence in France, and a dated certificate from the employer confirming the job is still open. British claimants should add one exhibit their French neighbours never need: proof of the employer’s genuine attempt to hire through the official channel, because judges see too many files where the company filed late or not at all and the employee pays the price.

Ask the judge for what you actually need, in the correct order. First, annulment of the refusal and of the OQTF with its re-entry ban. Second, an injunction, called an injonction, ordering the préfet to issue the card or at least to re-examine the file within a fixed time, with a daily penalty, called an astreinte, for delay. Third, while waiting, a provisional residence document with permission to work, called an autorisation provisoire de séjour avec autorisation de travail. This three-step request is exactly what applicants plead in the reported cases, including the Lyon file above, where the claimant sought annulment, an order to deliver the card or re-examine, interim papers with work rights, and costs. Copy that structure. Judges cannot grant what you forgot to ask for, and a bare request for “cancellation” without the injunction leaves you winning on paper and still unable to work.

Two traps specific to British employees deserve emphasis. The first is the Withdrawal Agreement dead end. If you lived in France before 31 December 2020 and hold or should hold a Withdrawal Agreement card, called a carte de séjour Accord de retrait, you do not need an autorisation de travail at all: that card carries its own right to work. But if you arrived after that date, do not invoke the Agreement in your appeal; it does not cover you, and citing it weakens an otherwise solid argument about your salary or your employer’s file. The second trap is working during the challenge. Filing an appeal does not automatically authorise you to keep working unless the court or the préfet has issued interim papers saying so. An employer who keeps a refused Briton on the rota “while the case runs” commits the offence of employing a foreigner without permission, and the employee accrues unlawful presence that the next préfet will hold against them. The clean sequence is: challenge fast, request interim papers with work rights, and suspend actual work until the paper arrives, while protecting your contract through the mechanisms described below.

B. Can my employer sack me over the refusal, and what money am I owed?

A refusal does not give your employer a free dismissal. French employment law treats a foreign worker employed without the proper permission as a worker like any other for the employer’s obligations, and it punishes the employer who tries to discard them for nothing. The foundation is article L. 8252-1 of the Code du travail: “Le salarié étranger employé en méconnaissance des dispositions du premier alinéa de l’article L. 8251-1 est assimilé, à compter de la date de son embauche, à un salarié régulièrement engagé au regard des obligations de l’employeur définies par le présent code”. In plain terms, from the day you were hired, your boss owed you the same duties as for a French colleague: lawful working time, rest and leave, health and safety, and seniority. A British kitchen porter in Aix-en-Provence, a British childminder in Nanterre or a British warehouse operative in Lyon keeps those rights even if the autorisation de travail was missing. The employer’s failure to check your papers, in breach of article L. 5221-8 quoted above, never becomes your punishment.

The money right that matters most on dismissal is the flat-rate indemnity, called the indemnité forfaitaire, equal to three months’ pay. Article L. 8252-2 of the Code du travail provides that the foreign employee is entitled, for the unlawful employment period, “En cas de rupture de la relation de travail, à une indemnité forfaitaire égale à trois mois de salaire, à moins que l’application des règles figurant aux articles L. 1234-5 […], L. 1234-9 […], L. 1243-4 et L. 1243-8 ou des stipulations contractuelles correspondantes ne conduise à une solution plus favorable.” Keep every pay slip, because the three months are computed on your real salary, and the same article adds a presumption that helps workers paid cash-in-hand: without contrary proof, the sums due correspond to a presumed three-month relationship, while “Le salarié peut apporter par tous moyens la preuve du travail effectué”, meaning you may prove the work done by any means, including messages, rotas, photos and witness statements. The Cour de cassation has repeated the core of the rule for decades. In Social Chamber, 14 February 2018, No. 16-22.335 (ECLI:FR:CCASS:2018:SO00253), it held: “Attendu qu’il résulte de ce texte que le salarié étranger a droit au titre de la période d’emploi illicite, en cas de rupture de la relation de travail, à une indemnité forfaitaire égale à trois mois de salaire ; que lorsque l’étranger employé sans titre l’a été dans le cadre d’un travail dissimulé, il bénéficie soit des dispositions de l’article L. 8223-1, soit des dispositions du présent chapitre si celles-ci lui sont plus favorables”. The second half of that sentence is a practical gift: where the employer also hid the job from the authorities, called travail dissimulé, meaning concealed work, you take whichever regime pays more.

The comparison between the two indemnities was confirmed two years later. In Social Chamber, 18 March 2020, No. 18-24.982 (ECLI:FR:CCASS:2020:SO00360), the Court approved the rule that “lorsque l’étranger employé sans titre de travail l’a été dans le cadre d’un travail dissimulé, il bénéficie soit des dispositions de l’article L. 8223-1 du code du travail, soit des dispositions des articles L. 8252-1 à L. 8252-4 du même code si celles-ci lui sont plus favorables”. Concretely, the judges compare the recall of unpaid wages plus the three-month flat indemnity against the six-month concealed-work indemnity of article L. 8223-1, and award the better total. A British employee who was never declared, paid partly in cash and then dismissed after the préfecture refused the papers should therefore claim on both bases and let the conseil de prud’hommes, meaning the employment tribunal, do the maths. The most recent word from the Court sharpens one edge of the rule. In Social Chamber, 9 April 2026, No. 25-12.603 (ECLI:FR:CCASS:2026:SO00364), it restated that “Selon ce texte, l’étranger non muni du titre l’autorisant à exercer une activité salariée en France a droit, au titre de la période d’emploi illicite, en cas de rupture de la relation de travail, à une indemnité forfaitaire égale à trois mois de salaire, à moins que l’application des règles figurant aux articles L. 1234-5, L. 1234-9, L. 1243-4 et L. 1243-8 ne conduise à une solution plus favorable”, then quashed the lower court with this warning: “En se déterminant ainsi, après avoir constaté que le licenciement avait été prononcé pour faute grave, sans rechercher si une telle faute, privative de l’indemnité forfaitaire prévue par l’article L. 8252-2 du code du travail, était caractérisée, le conseil de prud’hommes n’a pas donné de base légale à sa décision.” Gross misconduct, called faute grave, can deprive the worker of the flat indemnity, but the judge must genuinely verify that the misconduct is established rather than rubber-stamping the employer’s letter. If you are dismissed “for serious misconduct” the week after the préfecture refuses your papers, contest the characterisation itself: demand the precise facts, the dates and the proof, because an unproven faute grave leaves the three months intact.

Procedure before the employment tribunal protects you early. The same article L. 8252-2 allows the conseil de prud’hommes, seized in urgent proceedings called référé, to order interim payment of the flat indemnity, and the 2026 case above was precisely a dispute about such a provision. File the prud’hommes claim in parallel with the administrative challenge: the two courts do different jobs, the administrative judge decides whether you may stay and work, the employment judge decides what the employer owes you, and neither case waits for the other. British claimants sometimes fear that suing the boss will destroy the residence case. The opposite is true. Payslips, contracts and a tribunal claim proving real, sustained employment are exactly the exhibits that persuade the tribunal administratif that the post is genuine and the salary real. Keep both files consistent: same job title, same dates, same salary, same story.

Conclusion

Brexit turned British employees in France into foreign workers under the ordinary French immigration and labour system, with no shortcut and no nostalgia discount. The sequence to memorise is short: prior autorisation de travail applied for by the employer, then the carte de séjour salarié or travailleur temporaire from the préfet, then renewal on time and before expiry. A refusal usually arrives as a bundle with an OQTF and sometimes a re-entry ban, and each piece must be fought on its own ground: factual error and missing personal examination, manifest error on salary or the reality of the post, the four-month limit on withdrawing a granted permission, and your private and family life under article 8 where it applies. Ask the administrative judge for annulment plus the injunction and the interim papers with work rights, not for annulment alone. And if the contract ends, remember that French labour law stands behind you even without the stamp: assimilation to a regularly employed worker, wages provable by any means, and the three-month flat indemnity, with the better of the two regimes where the work was concealed, subject only to a genuinely proven faute grave. Act within the deadlines, keep every dated paper, and make the employer produce its own file. That is how a British employee turns a refusal letter from an ending into the beginning of a winnable case.

Need a quick opinion on your case.

Telephone consultation within 48 hours with an avocat of the firm. Première analyse : 80 EUR TTC. Call +33 6 46 60 58 22 or write via our contact page.