You run your French company from London, New York, Dubai or Singapore. Hiring a first employee under French employment law looks heavy, so you sign a freelancer instead: a service agreement, monthly invoices, no payslips, no payroll. The worker registers as a micro-entrepreneur, works only for you, follows your hours, uses your laptop and your email address. Everything seems flexible until two letters arrive. The first comes from URSSAF, the French body that collects social contributions, announcing a control of your company. The second comes from the worker, who now claims years of unpaid wages, paid leave and severance before the French labour court. Both letters say the same thing in different words: your contractor was in reality your employee.<\/p>\n
This guide explains how French law draws the line between a contractor and an employee, what requalification costs a foreign-run company, and how to challenge it from abroad. It is written for non-French founders and foreign groups running a SAS simplified joint-stock company or a SARL private limited company in France. Every French acronym is explained, every decisive rule is tied to the exact statute or published court decision behind it, and every deadline comes with the practical step a non-resident must take. Our companion walkthrough of the whole setup sequence, from bank account to Kbis company identity certificate, VAT number and first hire, is here: Setting Up a Company in France as a Foreign Founder<\/a>. Read this requalification guide as its warning light: formation gets you registered, but one false freelancer can cost more than your first year of payroll. Our companion analysis of URSSAF controls is here: Your French Company Is Audited by URSSAF and You Live Abroad<\/a>.<\/p>\n The short version before the detail. French law ignores the label the parties stick on their contract and looks only at the facts: a worker who performs tasks under your authority, following your orders, under your control, with sanctions for disobedience, is your employee, whatever the service agreement says. Registration as self-employed creates only a presumption that the worker is not your employee, and that presumption falls as soon as permanent legal subordination is shown. Requalification means back social contributions with penalties, back pay with paid leave, a flat-rate indemnity of six months of salary for concealed work, and possible criminal prosecution. The rest of this article proves each of those statements from the statutes and the two leading published decisions, then shows you the defences and the procedure to challenge a reassessment or a labour court claim while living abroad.<\/p>\n Before any bill or procedure, you need the classification test right. French courts apply it the same way whether the founder lives in Paris or on another continent: the label on the contract never decides, the daily working reality does. Two questions structure everything. First, what factual signs turn a contractor into an employee? Second, what protection does the contractor’s self-employed registration really give you? Take them one by one, because most foreign founders get the second answer dangerously wrong.<\/p>\n The cornerstone rule is that employment status is a matter of public policy, so the parties cannot contract out of it. The Cour de cassation, France’s supreme court for civil, commercial, social and criminal matters, stated this in the Uber judgment of 4 March 2020, appeal number 19-13.316, which rejected the appeals of Uber France and Uber BV and confirmed the requalification of a driver’s contract: “La qualification de contrat de travail \u00e9tant d’ordre public et donc indisponible, il ne peut y \u00eatre d\u00e9rog\u00e9 par convention.” (The classification as an employment contract is a matter of public policy and therefore unavailable, so it cannot be waived by agreement.): Cass. soc., 4 March 2020, No. 19-13.316, Uber, Cour de cassation<\/a>. In the same decision, the Court recalled the general formula: “l’existence d’une relation de travail ne d\u00e9pend ni de la volont\u00e9 exprim\u00e9e par les parties ni de la d\u00e9nomination qu’elles ont donn\u00e9e \u00e0 leur convention mais des conditions de fait dans lesquelles est exerc\u00e9e l’activit\u00e9” (the existence of an employment relationship depends neither on the intention expressed by the parties nor on the name they gave to their agreement, but on the factual conditions in which the activity is performed). Read that sentence twice. Your service agreement, your invoices, your worker’s micro-entrepreneur registration and even a clause stating that the parties intend an independent relationship count for nothing against the facts of daily work.<\/p>\n The decisive factual criterion is the lien de subordination, the relationship of legal subordination. The Cour de cassation gave its canonical definition in the Take Eat Easy judgment of 28 November 2018, appeal number 17-20.079, a decision of the social chamber sitting in full formation, published in the Bulletin and the Report, which quashed the Paris Court of Appeal’s refusal to requalify a bicycle courier: “le lien de subordination est caract\u00e9ris\u00e9 par l’ex\u00e9cution d’un travail sous l’autorit\u00e9 d’un employeur qui a le pouvoir de donner des ordres et des directives, d’en contr\u00f4ler l’ex\u00e9cution et de sanctionner les manquements de son subordonn\u00e9” (the relationship of subordination is characterised by the performance of work under the authority of an employer who has the power to give orders and directives, to control their performance and to punish breaches by the subordinate): Cass. soc., plenary formation, 28 Nov. 2018, No. 17-20.079, Take Eat Easy, Cour de cassation<\/a>. Three powers, cumulatively assessed: directing, controlling, punishing. The same judgment added the companion sentence quoted above: “l’existence d’une relation de travail ne d\u00e9pend ni de la volont\u00e9 exprim\u00e9e par les parties ni de la d\u00e9nomination qu’elles ont donn\u00e9e \u00e0 leur convention mais des conditions de fait dans lesquelles est exerc\u00e9e l’activit\u00e9 des travailleurs”. Two published supreme court decisions, two years apart,_platform economy and transport sectors, identical test: that is the stability of this rule.<\/p>\n Apply the three powers to your own arrangement honestly. Direction means you set working hours, assign tasks, impose methods, require presence at meetings or on site. Control means you monitor performance in real time, demand reports, track location or output through software, review the work before delivery to the client. Sanction means you can penalise lateness, poor quality or unavailability by cutting assignments, applying penalties or ending the relationship as a disciplinary response. In Take Eat Easy, the Court relied on two findings: the application had a geolocation system allowing the company to track the courier’s position in real time and count total kilometres, and the company held a power of sanction over the courier. Modern foreign-run startups replicate both features without thinking: Slack availability requirements, time-tracking tools, exclusivity in practice, fixed schedules, integration into the team, a company email address, mandatory use of internal software. Each of these is one tile in the mosaic judges assemble. No single tile decides alone; the judge weighs the bundle of indicators, the faisceau d’indices, and asks whether, taken together, they show that the worker could not organise their own activity freely.<\/p>\n Some signs weigh particularly heavily in litigation. Working exclusively or almost exclusively for one client over a long period suggests economic dependence that often accompanies legal subordination. Fixed remuneration unrelated to delivered output, paid monthly like a salary, looks like wages rather than fees. Integration into an organised service, with the worker attending the same meetings, using the same tools and following the same hierarchy as employees, blurs every boundary. Conversely, genuine independence shows through opposite signs: several concurrent clients, freely set schedules and rates, own equipment, ability to send a substitute, real negotiation of deliverables and prices, assumption of business risk. If your Paris-based developer, designer, salesperson or assistant works full-time for you alone, on your schedule, with your equipment, under your daily instructions, for a flat monthly fee, you are describing an employee in everything but name. The public enterprise service confirms the criterion in plain terms: the main feature distinguishing the two statuses is the relationship of legal subordination, with the independent worker acting autonomously, for themselves, with their own means: How to distinguish an independent worker from an employee, Service-Public.fr<\/a>.<\/p>\n Foreign founders sometimes believe distance protects them: the founder lives abroad, so how could a French worker be subordinate? The answer is that subordination runs through the company, not through the founder’s personal presence. Orders given by video call, control exercised through software dashboards, sanctions applied by cutting off platform access are still orders, control and sanctions. The registered office, the RCS Trade and Companies Register entry kept by the greffe commercial court registry, and the Kbis certificate that proves your company’s legal existence all anchor the employer in France regardless of where its shareholder or president sleeps. If the work is performed in France under the authority organised by your French company, French employment law applies to the classification, and the labour court of the place of work, the conseil de prud’hommes, hears the worker’s claim.<\/p>\n The second pillar of the system is the legal presumption that registered independent workers are not employees. Article L. 8221-6-I of the French Labour Code provides: “Sont pr\u00e9sum\u00e9s ne pas \u00eatre li\u00e9s avec le donneur d’ordre par un contrat de travail dans l’ex\u00e9cution de l’activit\u00e9 donnant lieu \u00e0 immatriculation ou inscription : 1\u00b0 Les personnes physiques immatricul\u00e9es au registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s” (Persons are presumed not to be bound to the client by an employment contract in the performance of the activity giving rise to registration: 1. Natural persons registered with the Trade and Companies Register): Article L. 8221-6, Labour Code, Legifrance<\/a>. The provision extends the same presumption to craftsmen, commercial agents and persons registered with URSSAF, the Union for the collection of social security and family allowance contributions. Your contractor’s micro-entrepreneur registration therefore gives you a starting advantage: the worker or the administration must prove employment, you do not have to prove independence at the outset.<\/p>\n But the second paragraph of the same article removes that comfort as fast as it gives it. Article L. 8221-6-II states: “L’existence d’un contrat de travail peut toutefois \u00eatre \u00e9tablie lorsque les personnes mentionn\u00e9es au I fournissent directement ou par une personne interpos\u00e9e des prestations \u00e0 un donneur d’ordre dans des conditions qui les placent dans un lien de subordination juridique permanente \u00e0 l’\u00e9gard de celui-ci.” (The existence of an employment contract may nevertheless be established where the persons mentioned in I provide services to a client, directly or through an intermediary, in conditions placing them in a relationship of permanent legal subordination towards that client.): Article L. 8221-6-II, Labour Code, Legifrance<\/a>. The presumption is therefore simple, not irrebuttable: show permanent legal subordination and it collapses. Both the Take Eat Easy and Uber decisions are applications of exactly this mechanism. The couriers and drivers were registered independents covered by the presumption, and the Cour de cassation held that the facts established subordination anyway. Treat the presumption as a shield made of paper: useful against a bare assertion, useless against a documented bundle of orders, controls and sanctions.<\/p>\n French law goes further and imposes on you an active duty of vigilance when you engage contractors. Article L. 8222-1 of the Labour Code provides: “Toute personne v\u00e9rifie lors de la conclusion d’un contrat dont l’objet porte sur une obligation d’un montant minimum en vue de l’ex\u00e9cution d’un travail, de la fourniture d’une prestation de services ou de l’accomplissement d’un acte de commerce, et p\u00e9riodiquement jusqu’\u00e0 la fin de l’ex\u00e9cution du contrat, que son cocontractant s’acquitte” (Every person verifies, when concluding a contract above a minimum amount for the performance of work, the supply of services or the completion of a commercial act, and periodically until the end of performance, that the other party complies): Article L. 8222-1, Labour Code, Legifrance<\/a>, with the formalities of Articles L. 8221-3 and L. 8221-5. In practice, for any service contract of 5,000 euros or more excluding tax, you must obtain and keep the contractor’s vigilance documents, including the attestation of social declarations, and renew the check every six months until the contract ends. A foreign-run company that cannot produce these documents at a control starts its URSSAF audit with a presumption of negligence. Collect the papers at signature, diary the six-month renewal, and store everything where your French accountant can reach it without asking you across time zones.<\/p>\n The neighbouring prohibitions complete the trap. Article L. 8221-3 defines concealed work by concealment of activity: “Est r\u00e9put\u00e9 travail dissimul\u00e9 par dissimulation d’activit\u00e9, l’exercice \u00e0 but lucratif d’une activit\u00e9 de production, de transformation, de r\u00e9paration ou de prestation de services” (Work concealed by concealment of activity means the profit-making performance of production, processing, repair or service activity) while intentionally evading registration or declaration duties: Article L. 8221-3, Labour Code, Legifrance<\/a>. Article L. 8221-5 defines concealed work by concealment of salaried employment: “Est r\u00e9put\u00e9 travail dissimul\u00e9 par dissimulation d’emploi salari\u00e9 le fait pour tout employeur : 1\u00b0 Soit de se soustraire intentionnellement \u00e0 l’accomplissement de la formalit\u00e9 pr\u00e9vue \u00e0 l’article L. 1221-10” (Concealment of salaried employment means any employer intentionally evading the formality of Article L. 1221-10 on the prior declaration of hiring, the DPAE): Article L. 8221-5, Labour Code, Legifrance<\/a>. That referenced formality is the DPAE, the d\u00e9claration pr\u00e9alable \u00e0 l’embauche, the prior declaration of hiring every employer must file before any employee starts. Article L. 1221-10 states: “L’embauche d’un salari\u00e9 ne peut intervenir qu’apr\u00e8s d\u00e9claration nominative accomplie par l’employeur aupr\u00e8s des organismes de protection sociale d\u00e9sign\u00e9s \u00e0 cet effet.” (No hiring of an employee may take place before a nominative declaration made by the employer to the designated social protection bodies.): Article L. 1221-10, Labour Code, Legifrance<\/a>. If your contractor is requalified as an employee, you necessarily missed the DPAE, necessarily issued no payslip, and necessarily declared nothing: each missing formality becomes one count of the concealed-work charge. This cascade explains why the bill in Part II is so much larger than the contributions alone.<\/p>\n Once the classification falls, three paymasters queue at your door: the social security collector, the worker, and potentially the criminal court. Each applies its own rules, its own arithmetic and its own deadlines, and each can be challenged, but only inside its own procedure and time limits. Foreign founders lose winnable cases by mixing the tracks: answering the URSSAF letter as if it were the labour court claim, or ignoring the mise en demeure formal demand while negotiating informally with the worker. Keep the three tracks separate in your mind and in your files, and fight each on its own ground.<\/p>\n The social security track starts from affiliation. Article L. 311-2 of the Social Security Code provides: “Sont affili\u00e9es obligatoirement aux assurances sociales du r\u00e9gime g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, quel que soit leur \u00e2ge et m\u00eame si elles sont titulaires d’une pension, toutes les personnes quelle que soit leur nationalit\u00e9, de l’un ou de l’autre sexe, salari\u00e9es ou travaillant \u00e0 quelque titre ou en quelque lieu que ce soit, pour un ou plusieurs employeurs” (All persons, whatever their nationality, of either sex, employed or working in any capacity or place whatever, for one or several employers, are compulsorily affiliated to the general social insurance scheme): Article L. 311-2, Social Security Code, Legifrance<\/a>. A requalified worker was therefore always affiliated, and every fee you paid them was always salary for contribution purposes. Article L. 242-1 sets the base: “Les cotisations de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sociale dues au titre de l’affiliation au r\u00e9gime g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des personnes mentionn\u00e9es aux articles L. 311-2 et L. 311-3 sont assises sur les revenus d’activit\u00e9” (Social security contributions due for general-scheme affiliation of the persons in Articles L. 311-2 and L. 311-3 are assessed on earned income): Article L. 242-1, Social Security Code, Legifrance<\/a>. The reassessment therefore reconstructs employer and employee contributions on all fees paid during the requalified period, adds late-payment surcharges and penalties, and in concealed-work cases applies specific increases. For a developer invoicing 5,000 euros monthly over two years, the reconstructed base reaches 120,000 euros, and total employer charges at roughly 40 to 45 percent of gross produce 50,000 euros or more before penalties: a sum that sinks early-stage companies. Add that URSSAF reassessments can look back three years, extended in cases of concealed work or incomplete declarations, and the social track alone justifies prevention.<\/p>\n The employment track is the worker’s claim before the conseil de prud’hommes, the French labour court that hears individual employment disputes. Requalification converts the service agreement into an open-ended employment contract, a CDI, contrat \u00e0 dur\u00e9e ind\u00e9termin\u00e9e, from the first day of actual work. Everything attached to employee status crystallises at once: back pay if fees fell below the applicable minimum wage, the SMIC national minimum wage, or the conventional minimum of the applicable collective agreement; paid leave of two and a half days per month worked, paid as an indemnity for untaken leave; overtime supplements if hours exceeded the 35-hour legal week; and, where the relationship has ended, the termination package. The flagship sanction is the flat-rate indemnity for concealed work. Article L. 8223-1 provides: “En cas de rupture de la relation de travail, le salari\u00e9 auquel un employeur a eu recours dans les conditions de l’article L. 8221-3 ou en commettant les faits pr\u00e9vus \u00e0 l’article L. 8221-5 a droit \u00e0 une indemnit\u00e9 forfaitaire \u00e9gale \u00e0 six mois de salaire.” (Where the working relationship ends, the employee engaged in the conditions of Article L. 8221-3 or through the acts of Article L. 8221-5 is entitled to a flat-rate indemnity equal to six months of salary.): Article L. 8223-1, Labour Code, Legifrance<\/a>. Six months of reconstructed salary, on top of notice indemnity, leave indemnity and severance, and independent of any proof of loss: the worker only proves the concealed employment, the amount follows automatically. Courts then add, where the facts support them, damages for unfair dismissal without real and serious cause, calculated within the Macron scale, and damages for breach of reporting obligations such as the missing DPAE and payslips.<\/p>\n The criminal track is the one foreign directors underestimate most. Intentional concealed employment is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment and fines for the individual, with higher amounts for legal entities, plus exclusion from public contracts and repayment of public aid. The L. 8221-6-II mechanism quoted in Part I expressly provides that where subordination is established, “la dissimulation d’emploi salari\u00e9 est \u00e9tablie si le donneur d’ordre s’est soustrait intentionnellement par ce moyen \u00e0 l’accomplissement des obligations incombant \u00e0 l’employeur mentionn\u00e9es \u00e0 l’article L. 8221-5” (concealment of salaried employment is established where the client intentionally evaded the employer’s obligations of Article L. 8221-5), and the convicted client “est tenu au paiement des cotisations et contributions sociales \u00e0 la charge des employeurs, calcul\u00e9es sur les sommes vers\u00e9es” (must pay the employer social contributions calculated on the sums paid). Prosecutions usually follow a labour inspectorate report after a control, and a criminal conviction for concealed work automatically triggers the contribution bill on top of the fine. The statute ties the two together: Article L. 8221-6-II, Labour Code, Legifrance<\/a>. The good news inside the bad: intent must be proved, and a documented, good-faith classification analysis prepared before hiring, with legal advice and consistent paperwork, is your best evidence that any error was not intentional. Commission that analysis before the first invoice, not after the first control letter.<\/p>\n Time limits cut both ways and must be counted from day one. On the employment side, Article L. 1471-1 of the Labour Code provides: “Toute action portant sur l’ex\u00e9cution du contrat de travail se prescrit par deux ans \u00e0 compter du jour o\u00f9 celui qui l’exerce a connu ou aurait d\u00fb conna\u00eetre les faits lui permettant d’exercer son droit. Toute action portant sur la rupture du contrat de travail se prescrit par douze mois \u00e0 compter de la notification de la rupture.” (Any action on performance of the employment contract is time-barred after two years from the day the claimant knew or should have known the facts allowing exercise of the right. Any action on termination is time-barred after twelve months from notification of termination.): Article L. 1471-1, Labour Code, Legifrance<\/a>. Wage claims benefit from a three-year specific period, and the same article preserves it. Concretely, a contractor who worked with you from 2022 to 2025 and sues in 2026 can still claim three years of back pay and leave, plus the six-month indemnity if the rupture claim is filed within twelve months of the end of the relationship. On the social side, recovery follows its own formal chain: the control, the observations letter, then the formal demand. Article L. 244-2 of the Social Security Code frames the demand stage: “ledit avertissement est remplac\u00e9 par une mise en demeure adress\u00e9e par lettre recommand\u00e9e ou par tout moyen donnant date certaine \u00e0 sa r\u00e9ception par l’employeur” (the warning is replaced by a formal demand sent by registered letter or any means giving a certain date of receipt by the employer): Article L. 244-2, Social Security Code, Legifrance<\/a>. Every deadline in both tracks runs in writing, in French, to addresses in France: which is why Part B below organises your remote defence around a French correspondence address and calendar control.<\/p>\n Start with the URSSAF track, because its deadlines are the shortest and its paperwork decides half the labour case later. A control ends with a lettre d’observations listing each envisaged reassessment with its legal basis and amount. You have a fixed reply period, usually thirty days, to answer point by point in the contradictory phase: this is your best window, because the inspector can still drop items before the final bill. Answer in French, in writing, theme by theme, attaching every independence proof you hold: the contractor’s other clients and invoices, their own premises and equipment, freely set schedules, negotiated rates, absence of exclusivity, substitution clauses actually used. Then comes the mise en demeure formal demand for the final amount, which opens the challenge period before the commission de recours amiable, the amicable appeals commission, followed by the judicially social court on the judicial side. Never let a mise en demeure go unanswered while you negotiate informally: file the protective challenge inside the deadline even as settlement talks continue, because an unchallenged demand becomes enforceable and URSSAF proceeds by contrainte, an enforceable order served like a judgment, against your French bank account. From abroad, this means one rule: every URSSAF letter is scanned to your adviser the day it arrives at your French address, and no deadline is ever counted in your head, only in a shared written calendar.<\/p>\n Defend the classification on facts, not on labels, and build the file before the dispute. Judges weigh the bundle of indicators, so feed them independence indicators from the first day of the relationship. A written service agreement describing deliverables rather than working time, rates negotiated per assignment, invoices varying with output, proof of other clients, the contractor’s own SIRET registration number and professional insurance, correspondence showing refused or rescheduled assignments without penalty, and absence from internal hierarchies, team rituals and disciplinary processes: each document is one tile in your mosaic. Symmetrically, purge the subordination tiles wherever the business allows: no fixed hours, no exclusivity clause, no company email address or job title, no paid leave approvals, no performance warnings, no integration into the organisation chart, equipment owned by the contractor. Where operational reality requires coordination, document it as client-supplier coordination between two businesses, with milestones and acceptance records, not as supervision of a subordinate. Companies that win requalification cases do not win on rhetoric; they win because their paper trail tells a supplier story while the claimant tells an employee story, and the supplier story is thicker.<\/p>\n Before the conseil de prud’hommes, the procedure has its own logic to respect from abroad. The worker files in the labour court of the place of work or of the employer’s establishment; for a Paris-based contractor, that is usually the Paris labour court, with conciliation first, then judgment, and proceedings entirely in French. Limitation periods from Article L. 1471-1 govern admissibility, so your first defence line is often time-bar: rupture claims filed more than twelve months after the relationship ended, performance claims reaching back beyond the applicable two or three years. The second line is classification itself, argued with the independence file described above. The third line is quantum: even requalified, the worker must prove each euro claimed, overtime hour by hour, applicable conventional minima line by line, and the six-month indemnity of Article L. 8223-1 requires proof of the concealed-work conditions of Articles L. 8221-3 or L. 8221-5, including intent. Settlement at the conciliation stage, with a transaction protocol drafted under French law, often costs a fraction of a full judgment plus appeal, and it spares your company a published decision future claimants could cite. Decide the settlement authority in advance with your adviser, in writing, so the conciliation hearing does not find you asleep in another time zone.<\/p>\n Organise the Paris and Ile-de-France practical path as a standing system, not a one-off reaction. Keep a French correspondence address that is checked daily: your accountant’s office, your domiciliation agent or your lawyer’s office, with written instructions to forward any URSSAF, labour inspectorate or court envelope within twenty-four hours. Hold the vigilance file of Article L. 8222-1 current: contractor attestations refreshed every six months, stored centrally, accessible to whoever receives the control letter while you travel. File the DPAE for every genuine new hire before day one, so no inspector can present your company as a business that systematically avoids declarations. If you use contractors in Paris today, audit each relationship against the Take Eat Easy and Uber criteria this quarter: exclusivity, schedule control, monitoring tools, integration, rate-setting. Convert the subordinate ones into CDI employment contracts with proper DPAE, affiliation and payslips, or genuinely liberate them into multi-client supplier relationships with rewritten agreements and changed daily practice. Both cures cost less than one requalification, and both are decided by you, now, rather than by a judge, later. Companies registered with the Paris RCS, controlled by URSSAF Ile-de-France and sued before the Paris conseil de prud’hommes face experienced opponents who see false freelancing every week: meet that experience with files, deadlines and local representation, and distance stops being a handicap.<\/p>\n France does not prohibit using contractors; it prohibits directing them like employees while declaring none. The test fits on one line from the Cour de cassation: orders, control, sanctions. The presumption of self-employment in Article L. 8221-6 protects genuine independents and abandons false ones. The price of error stacks three layers: URSSAF back contributions with penalties on every fee paid, labour court back pay with leave and the automatic six-month indemnity for concealed work, and criminal exposure where intent is shown. The defence also fits on one line: genuine independence, documented daily, verified every six months, challenged inside every deadline. Audit your French contractors now against the two published decisions, regularise what must be regularised, and build the paper trail that lets you prove, from any country, that your suppliers were truly suppliers. That discipline is the difference between flexible resourcing and an employment liability discovered too late.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Foreign founder running a French company from abroad? A freelancer under your daily control is an employee under French law. Subordination test, back contributions, six-month indemnity and how to challenge.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16316,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kj_source_type":"","_kj_official_id":"","_kj_official_url":"","_kj_judilibre_id":"","_kj_jur":"","_kj_lieu":"","_kj_chambre":"","_kj_rg":"","_kj_date":"","activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":4,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"federated","footnotes":""},"categories":[80314,80313],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2138004","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-decryptage","category-doing-business-in-france"],"yoast_head":"\nI. Your French Contractor May Already Be Your Employee Under French Law<\/h2>\n
A. The Subordination Test: Orders, Control and Sanctions Decide, Never the Contract Label<\/h3>\n
B. The Presumption of Self-Employment and Your Duty to Verify Your Contractor<\/h3>\n
II. What Requalification Costs and How to Challenge It While Living Abroad<\/h2>\n
A. The Bill After Requalification: Back Contributions, Back Pay, the Six-Month Indemnity and Criminal Exposure<\/h3>\n
B. Challenging Requalification From Abroad: URSSAF Procedure, Labour Court Defence and the Paris Practical Path<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n