{"id":13621,"date":"2026-05-26T13:40:46","date_gmt":"2026-05-26T11:40:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patchwork.law\/non-classifiee\/cumul-mandat-social-contrat-travail\/"},"modified":"2026-10-16T10:07:06","modified_gmt":"2026-10-16T08:07:06","slug":"corporate-mandate-employment-contract","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patchwork.law\/en\/employment-law-glossary\/corporate-mandate-employment-contract\/","title":{"rendered":"Combining a corporate mandate and an employment contract in France"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"pw-callout pw-callout--info\" role=\"note\" aria-label=\"\u00c0 retenir\">Definition: holding both a corporate office and a contract of employment means that a company director or other corporate officer simultaneously holds a corporate office and performs separate duties as an employee of the same company. Such an arrangement is valid only where the employment relates to genuine work, is separately remunerated and is performed under an actual relationship of legal subordination.<\/div>\n<nav class=\"pw-sommaire\" aria-label=\"Contents\">\n<p class=\"pw-sommaire__titre\"><strong>Contents<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul class=\"pw-sommaire__liste\">\n<li><a href=\"#1-principe\">1. General principles governing dual status<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#2-regles-par-forme\">2. Rules applicable to each form of company<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#3-conditions-validite\">3. Conditions for a valid arrangement<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#4-risques\">4. Risks of an improperly structured arrangement<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#5-questions\">5. Frequently asked questions about holding a corporate office and an employment contract<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#contact\">6. Legal advice on corporate office and employment contract arrangements<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/nav>\n<p>Holding both a <strong>corporate office and a contract of employment<\/strong> is a recurring issue in French company law: can a person simultaneously act as a corporate officer and as an employee of the same company? The answer depends on the company\u2019s legal form, the duties performed and compliance with the strict requirements established by case law. An improperly structured arrangement may result in the employment relationship being challenged, the loss of associated employment rights and significant tax and social security consequences.<\/p>\n<section id=\"1-principe\" class=\"pw-section\">\n<h2>1. General principles governing dual status<\/h2>\n<h3>1.1 \u2013 Corporate office and employment contract: two distinct legal relationships<\/h3>\n<p>A <strong>corporate officer<\/strong> (such as the president, directeur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, g\u00e9rant or a member of the management board) performs the functions of a corporate office conferred in accordance with the company\u2019s governance arrangements. Holding that office does not, in itself, create an employment relationship with the company. An <strong>employee<\/strong>, by contrast, performs work for remuneration under the authority of an employer empowered to issue instructions, supervise their performance and impose disciplinary sanctions.<\/p>\n<h3>1.2 \u2013 A requirement common to all company forms: legal subordination<\/h3>\n<p>Whatever the company\u2019s legal form, dual status is valid only if the employment contract relates to <strong>technical or operational duties distinct<\/strong> from those of the corporate office and those duties are performed under a <strong>genuine relationship of legal subordination<\/strong> to the company. The existence of an employment contract depends on the actual circumstances in which the duties are performed, not on the designation given to the agreement.<\/p>\n<div class=\"pw-callout pw-callout--warning\" role=\"note\" aria-label=\"Key point\">\n<p class=\"pw-callout__title\"><strong>Key point<\/strong><\/p>\n<p class=\"pw-callout__text\">The existence of legal subordination is assessed by the courts on the facts of each case. A corporate officer who exercises decision-making powers without being subject to effective hierarchical supervision cannot establish an employment relationship merely by producing a duly executed and approved contract. Substance prevails over form.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"2-regles-par-forme\" class=\"pw-section\">\n<h2>2. Rules applicable to each form of company<\/h2>\n<h3>2.1 \u2013 Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 anonyme (SA): French public limited company<\/h3>\n<p>In an SA, the rules depend on the corporate office concerned. For <strong>members of the board of directors (administrateurs)<\/strong>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/codes\/article_lc\/LEGIARTI000051322421\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Article L. 225-22 of the French Commercial Code<\/a> establishes, in particular, the following principles:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>An employee may be appointed to the board of directors only if the employment contract relates to <strong>genuine employment<\/strong>; the individual retains the benefit of that contract.<\/li>\n<li>The number of directors who are also employed by the company must not, as a general rule, exceed <strong>one-third of the directors in office<\/strong>, subject to statutory exclusions applicable to certain employee-representative directors.<\/li>\n<li>As an exception to the requirement that employment precede appointment, a director of an SA meeting the statutory SME criteria may become an employee during their term of office, provided that the contract relates to genuine employment (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/codes\/article_lc\/LEGIARTI000025555833\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Article L. 225-21-1<\/a>).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>For <strong>members of the supervisory board (conseil de surveillance)<\/strong>, the combination of board membership with genuine employment, and the one-third limit, are governed in particular by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/codes\/article_lc\/LEGIARTI000051322581\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Article L. 225-85<\/a>. The rules applicable to the directeur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral and members of the management board (directoire) must be considered separately. The French rules on <em>conventions r\u00e9glement\u00e9es<\/em> (related-party agreements subject to statutory oversight) apply where required by law, taking account of the relevant exemptions.<\/p>\n<div class=\"pw-callout pw-callout--info\" role=\"note\" aria-label=\"Key takeaway\">\n<p class=\"pw-callout__title\"><strong>Key takeaway: the position of an SA\u2019s directeur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral<\/strong><\/p>\n<p class=\"pw-callout__text\">An SA\u2019s directeur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral may retain an employment contract entered into before appointment, provided that the employment is genuine, the duties are distinct and an actual relationship of legal subordination exists. A contract entered into during the term of office requires a specific assessment of the powers exercised, the applicable company-law rules and any relevant approval procedures. Simply executing an employment contract cannot, of itself, establish an employment relationship.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h3>2.2 \u2013 Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e (SARL): French private limited liability company<\/h3>\n<p>As a general rule, a <strong>majority g\u00e9rant of an SARL<\/strong> cannot demonstrate legal subordination to a company which that person controls; combining the corporate office with an employment contract is therefore generally precluded. Majority status is assessed by reference, in particular, to interests held by the g\u00e9rant, their spouse or civil partner under a PACS and their unemancipated minor children, as well as, where relevant, the rules applicable to <strong>joint management (cog\u00e9rance)<\/strong>. This assessment is not limited to whether the individual personally holds more than 50% of the shares. By contrast, a <strong>minority or 50% shareholder-g\u00e9rant<\/strong> may combine the corporate office with an employment contract, provided that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The person performs technical or operational duties distinct from the corporate office;<\/li>\n<li>The person is subject to a genuine relationship of legal subordination to the company;<\/li>\n<li>The procedure governing related-party agreements under <a title=\"Article L. 223-19 of the French Commercial Code\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/codes\/article_lc\/LEGIARTI000006223120\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Article L. 223-19 of the French Commercial Code<\/a> is followed <strong>where applicable<\/strong>, taking account of statutory exemptions and the circumstances of the g\u00e9rant concerned.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>2.3 \u2013 Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e (SAS): French simplified joint-stock company<\/h3>\n<p>An SAS offers considerable flexibility in its constitutional arrangements, but that flexibility does not exempt its officers from the requirements for a valid employment relationship. Its president or another corporate officer may also perform genuinely distinct duties as an employee, provided that the work is genuine and those duties are carried out under <strong>actual legal subordination<\/strong>. Where relevant, the related-party agreement regime must be considered under <a title=\"Article L. 227-10 of the French Commercial Code\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/codes\/article_lc\/LEGIARTI000034584108\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Articles L. 227-10<\/a> and <a title=\"Article L. 227-11 of the French Commercial Code\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/codes\/article_lc\/LEGIARTI000024039876\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">L. 227-11 of the French Commercial Code<\/a>, as well as the company\u2019s articles of association. Dual status may be particularly difficult to establish where the president controls the company or, in practice, enjoys autonomy inconsistent with legal subordination in the purported employment duties. The fact that a remunerated SAS president is treated as an <strong><em>assimil\u00e9 salari\u00e9<\/em> for French social security purposes<\/strong> does not, in itself, make that person an employee under employment law or confer unemployment insurance cover.<\/p>\n<h3>2.4 \u2013 Other forms of company<\/h3>\n<p>In a <strong>soci\u00e9t\u00e9 en nom collectif (SNC), or French general partnership<\/strong>, the powers and liabilities associated with being a partner make it particularly difficult in practice to establish genuine subordination to the entity, especially for a managing partner. In a <strong>soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile (civil-law company)<\/strong>, dual status cannot be ruled out solely because an individual is a member or g\u00e9rant: the outcome depends on the powers actually exercised, the existence of separate employment duties and genuine legal subordination. Each case requires an individual assessment.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"3-conditions-validite\" class=\"pw-section\">\n<h2>3. Requirements for a valid dual-status arrangement<\/h2>\n<h3>3.1 \u2013 Genuine and distinct operational duties<\/h3>\n<p>The employment contract must relate to genuine employment involving <strong>specific, identifiable duties separate<\/strong> from those inherent in the corporate office. A vague job description or duties overlapping with those of the corporate office are common grounds for challenging the existence of a separate employment relationship.Examples of duties that may support a dual-status arrangement include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Technical or IT duties distinct from the responsibilities of corporate management, provided that actual legal subordination exists;<\/li>\n<li>Clearly defined operational sales duties separate from the governance of the company;<\/li>\n<li>Specialist professional functions (such as engineering or architecture), where the actual working arrangements are those of an employee.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>3.2 \u2013 An actual relationship of legal subordination<\/h3>\n<p>A corporate officer claiming employee status must, in the performance of the employment duties, be subject to an authority which genuinely has the power to issue instructions, supervise their implementation and, where appropriate, impose sanctions for non-compliance. Oversight by shareholders over the exercise of the corporate office is not sufficient in itself. Where an officer exercises sole control over the company, such control is generally incompatible with the necessary relationship of legal subordination.<\/p>\n<h3>3.3 \u2013 Identifiable remuneration<\/h3>\n<p>Employment duties must attract <strong>identifiable remuneration<\/strong> for genuine work performed. Clearly allocating remuneration between the corporate office and the employment contract is important for evidential purposes and risk management, although it does not by itself establish legal subordination.<\/p>\n<h3>3.4 \u2013 Compliance with applicable approval procedures<\/h3>\n<p>Whether an agreement constitutes a <strong><em>convention r\u00e9glement\u00e9e<\/em><\/strong>, which corporate body has jurisdiction and which procedure applies depend on the legal form of the company and the position of the person concerned. Certain transactions entered into in the ordinary course of business on arm\u2019s-length terms are exempt. A procedural irregularity therefore does not automatically render the contract void: its consequences and any resulting liability depend on the applicable statutory provisions.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"4-risques\" class=\"pw-section\">\n<h2>4. Risks of an improperly structured arrangement<\/h2>\n<h3>4.1 \u2013 A challenge to the existence of the employment contract<\/h3>\n<p>In a dispute, a court may find that the requirements for a genuine employment contract have not been met, in particular because the duties are not distinct or because legal subordination is absent. This is not necessarily a case of an employment contract being \u201creclassified as a corporate office\u201d. The consequences depend on the facts, the sequence of appointments and any <strong>suspension of an earlier employment contract<\/strong>:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>No entitlement to rights arising on termination of a non-existent employment contract, including notice or statutory dismissal compensation;<\/li>\n<li>No unemployment insurance cover by virtue of holding the corporate office alone, without prejudice to other potential entitlements;<\/li>\n<li>Potential scrutiny of the social security treatment of remuneration and contributions paid, without any automatic reassessment;<\/li>\n<li>Possible disputes concerning the existence, suspension or resumption of an employment contract predating the corporate appointment.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div class=\"pw-callout pw-callout--warning\" role=\"note\" aria-label=\"Key point\">\n<p class=\"pw-callout__title\"><strong>Key point<\/strong><\/p>\n<p class=\"pw-callout__text\">The existence of an employment contract may be disputed even after the duties have been performed for several years. Claims for relief, monetary claims and any adjustments are nevertheless subject to their respective rules, including limitation periods. The issue of payslips does not, by itself, establish the existence of an employment contract.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h3>4.2 \u2013 Risks in insolvency proceedings<\/h3>\n<p>In insolvency proceedings, the existence of a genuine employment contract may be examined when claims are verified and their eligibility for protection is determined. A corporate officer does not, merely by virtue of holding office, benefit from the French wage guarantee scheme (<strong>AGS<\/strong>). By contrast, claims arising under a <strong>genuine employment contract<\/strong> may qualify for that protection, subject to applicable statutory conditions, caps and exclusions.<\/p>\n<h3>4.3 \u2013 Tax risks<\/h3>\n<p>A finding that no employment contract exists does <strong>not automatically<\/strong> mean that the remuneration paid is non-deductible for tax purposes. Both employment remuneration and remuneration paid to company officers may, depending on the applicable tax regime, be deductible where the statutory conditions are met, notably where the payments relate to <strong>work actually performed<\/strong> and are not excessive in relation to the services rendered (<a title=\"Article 39 of the French General Tax Code\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/codes\/article_lc\/LEGIARTI000053542680\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Article 39(1)(1\u00b0) of the French General Tax Code<\/a>). The tax position must be assessed by reference to the true nature of the payments, the evidence supporting them and the relevant tax regime.<\/p>\n<h3>4.4 \u2013 Company-law risks<\/h3>\n<p>The consequences of failing to comply with the rules governing <em>conventions r\u00e9glement\u00e9es<\/em> <strong>vary with the company\u2019s legal form<\/strong>. In an SARL, agreements which have not been approved nevertheless remain effective, subject to the liability of the persons concerned for any loss caused to the company (<a title=\"Article L. 223-19 of the French Commercial Code\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/codes\/article_lc\/LEGIARTI000006223120\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Article L. 223-19<\/a>). Subject to the conditions laid down in <a title=\"Article L. 227-10 of the French Commercial Code\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/codes\/article_lc\/LEGIARTI000034584108\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Article L. 227-10<\/a>, a similar principle applies to an SAS. In an SA with a board of directors, certain agreements requiring prior authorisation may be set aside if entered into without that authorisation and if they have caused harm to the company (<a title=\"Article L. 225-42 of the French Commercial Code\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/codes\/article_lc\/LEGIARTI000038610414\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Article L. 225-42<\/a>). There is therefore no general rule of automatic invalidity.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"pw-section\" id=\"5-questions\">\n<h2>5. Frequently asked questions about corporate office and employment contracts<\/h2>\n<div class=\"pw-accordion\">\n<div class=\"pw-accordion__item\"><input id=\"pw-faq-cm-1\" type=\"checkbox\"\/><br \/>\n<label class=\"pw-accordion__label\" for=\"pw-faq-cm-1\" itemprop=\"name\"><br \/>\nCan a majority g\u00e9rant of an SARL also be an employee of the company?<br \/>\n<span class=\"pw-accordion__icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/span><br \/>\n<\/label><\/p>\n<div class=\"pw-accordion__body\">\n<div class=\"pw-accordion__body-inner\">\n<div>\nAs a general rule, no. A majority g\u00e9rant, whose status is assessed taking account, in particular, of family shareholdings and the rules on joint management, will normally be unable to establish legal subordination to the company under their control. A court may accordingly find that no employment contract exists, without this necessarily amounting to an automatic reclassification of the contract as a corporate office.\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"pw-accordion__item\"><input id=\"pw-faq-cm-2\" type=\"checkbox\"\/><br \/>\n<label class=\"pw-accordion__label\" for=\"pw-faq-cm-2\" itemprop=\"name\"><br \/>\nCan the president of an SAS have an employment contract?<br \/>\n<span class=\"pw-accordion__icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/span><br \/>\n<\/label><\/p>\n<div class=\"pw-accordion__body\">\n<div class=\"pw-accordion__body-inner\">\n<div>\nYes, subject to conditions. French law does not expressly prohibit the president of an SAS from also holding an employment contract. However, the contract must relate to genuine technical or operational duties distinct from those of the corporate office, and the president must actually be subject to the authority of an appropriate management body. In practice, establishing legal subordination is difficult where the president is also the majority or sole shareholder. Each case must be assessed on its facts.\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"pw-accordion__item\"><input id=\"pw-faq-cm-3\" type=\"checkbox\"\/><br \/>\n<label class=\"pw-accordion__label\" for=\"pw-faq-cm-3\" itemprop=\"name\"><br \/>\nIs a corporate officer with an employment contract entitled to unemployment benefits upon removal from office?<br \/>\n<span class=\"pw-accordion__icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/span><br \/>\n<\/label><\/p>\n<div class=\"pw-accordion__body\">\n<div class=\"pw-accordion__body-inner\">\n<div>\nRemoval from a corporate office does not, of itself, confer entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits. Where a genuine employment contract exists, removal from office does not automatically terminate it. The corporate officer may qualify for French unemployment benefits (allocation d\u2019aide au retour \u00e0 l\u2019emploi, or ARE) if that employment is involuntarily lost, <strong>provided that the applicable insurance coverage and all other eligibility requirements are satisfied<\/strong>. Being treated as an assimil\u00e9 salari\u00e9 for social security purposes is not sufficient.\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"pw-accordion__item\"><input id=\"pw-faq-cm-4\" type=\"checkbox\"\/><br \/>\n<label class=\"pw-accordion__label\" for=\"pw-faq-cm-4\" itemprop=\"name\"><br \/>\nWhat happens to an employment contract when a corporate officer is removed from office?<br \/>\n<span class=\"pw-accordion__icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/span><br \/>\n<\/label><\/p>\n<div class=\"pw-accordion__body\">\n<div class=\"pw-accordion__body-inner\">\n<div>\nRemoval from a corporate office does not automatically terminate a genuine employment contract. Where the contract was <strong>suspended<\/strong> during the term of office, the conditions governing its resumption must be considered; where it remained in force, its obligations will generally continue to apply. Any termination of the employment contract is governed by the rules applicable to that contract and may, depending on the circumstances, be challenged before the French employment tribunal (conseil de prud\u2019hommes).\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"pw-accordion__item\"><input id=\"pw-faq-cm-5\" type=\"checkbox\"\/><br \/>\n<label class=\"pw-accordion__label\" for=\"pw-faq-cm-5\" itemprop=\"name\"><br \/>\nHow can a dual corporate office and employment arrangement be properly structured?<br \/>\n<span class=\"pw-accordion__icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/span><br \/>\n<\/label><\/p>\n<div class=\"pw-accordion__body\">\n<div class=\"pw-accordion__body-inner\">\n<div>\nThe employment duties must be clearly identified and separate from the corporate office. Actual legal subordination should be evidenced through instructions, supervision and the effective exercise of hierarchical authority. Remuneration should be identifiable, and the requirements applicable to the company\u2019s legal form, including any related-party agreement procedures, must be checked. The contractual documents must reflect the duties actually performed. A preliminary review under French employment and company law can reduce the risk of subsequent disputes.\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"contact\" class=\"pw-section\">\n<div class=\"pw-cta\">\n<h2>Legal advice on combining a corporate office with an employment contract<\/h2>\n<p>Combining a corporate office with an employment contract raises complex issues under both French employment law and <a href=\"\/en\/corporate-law\/\">corporate law<\/a>. Where the arrangement does not meet the applicable legal requirements or reflect the duties actually performed, the individual&#8217;s status as an employee and the rights arising from that status may be challenged. When properly structured, it establishes a clear distinction between the rights and obligations arising from each capacity.<\/p>\n<p>With expertise in <a title=\"French employment law solicitors\" href=\"\/en\/labor-lawyers\/\">French employment law<\/a>, Patchwork Avocats advises <a title=\"Legal advice for senior executives\" href=\"\/en\/executive-or-directors\/\">corporate officers and senior executives<\/a> and <a href=\"\/en\/companies\/\">businesses<\/a> on structuring their arrangements, drafting the relevant agreements and protecting their rights in the event of a dispute.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<p><script type=\"application\/ld+json\">{\n  \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\n  \"@type\": \"FAQPage\",\n  \"mainEntity\": [\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"Can a majority g\u00e9rant of an SARL also be an employee of the company?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"As a general rule, no. A majority g\u00e9rant, whose status is assessed taking account, in particular, of family shareholdings and the rules on joint management, will normally be unable to establish legal subordination to the company under their control. A court may accordingly find that no employment contract exists, without this necessarily amounting to an automatic reclassification of the contract as a corporate office.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"Can the president of an SAS have an employment contract?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"Yes, subject to conditions. French law does not expressly prohibit the president of an SAS from also holding an employment contract. However, the contract must relate to genuine technical or operational duties distinct from those of the corporate office, and the president must actually be subject to the authority of an appropriate management body. In practice, establishing legal subordination is difficult where the president is also the majority or sole shareholder. Each case must be assessed on its facts.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"Is a corporate officer with an employment contract entitled to unemployment benefits upon removal from office?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"Removal from a corporate office does not, of itself, confer entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits. Where a genuine employment contract exists, removal from office does not automatically terminate it. The corporate officer may qualify for French unemployment benefits (allocation d\u2019aide au retour \u00e0 l\u2019emploi, or ARE) if that employment is involuntarily lost, provided that the applicable insurance coverage and all other eligibility requirements are satisfied. Being treated as an assimil\u00e9 salari\u00e9 for social security purposes is not sufficient.\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"What happens to an employment contract when a corporate officer is removed from office?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"Removal from a corporate office does not automatically terminate a genuine employment contract. Where the contract was suspended during the term of office, the conditions governing its resumption must be considered; where it remained in force, its obligations will generally continue to apply. Any termination of the employment contract is governed by the rules applicable to that contract and may, depending on the circumstances, be challenged before the French employment tribunal (conseil de prud\u2019hommes).\"\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"@type\": \"Question\",\n      \"name\": \"How can a dual corporate office and employment arrangement be properly structured?\",\n      \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n        \"text\": \"The employment duties must be clearly identified and separate from the corporate office. Actual legal subordination should be evidenced through instructions, supervision and the effective exercise of hierarchical authority. Remuneration should be identifiable, and the requirements applicable to the company\u2019s legal form, including any related-party agreement procedures, must be checked. The contractual documents must reflect the duties actually performed. A preliminary review under French employment and company law can reduce the risk of subsequent disputes.\"\n      }\n    }\n  ]\n}<\/script><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Definition: holding both a corporate office and a contract of employment means that a company director or other corporate officer simultaneously holds a corporate office and performs separate duties as an employee of the same company. Such an arrangement is valid only where the employment relates to genuine work, is separately remunerated and is performed [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[444],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13621","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-employment-law-glossary","has-post-title","has-post-date","has-post-category","has-post-tag","has-post-comment","has-post-author",""],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patchwork.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13621","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patchwork.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patchwork.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patchwork.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patchwork.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13621"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/patchwork.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13621\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14592,"href":"https:\/\/patchwork.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13621\/revisions\/14592"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patchwork.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13621"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patchwork.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13621"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patchwork.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13621"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}