Harcèlement Moral at Work in France: The Law and Where to Report

Being on the receiving end of repeated behaviour that grinds down your working conditions is disorienting in a way that most workplace disputes are not. There is rarely a single event to point at. There is a pattern, and the pattern is often what makes the situation hard to describe to anyone who was not in the room.

French law addresses this directly and has done so since 2002. The concept is called harcèlement moral, and it exists in two separate codes at once: the Code du travail prohibits it and attaches civil and employment consequences, and the Code pénal makes it a criminal offence. This page explains what the law says, what the employer is obliged to do, how proof is organised, and which institutions exist to receive a report. It is general legal information about the rules, not an assessment of any particular situation.

Information last verified on 21 July 2026. This page presents general legal information, not legal advice.

What the Code du travail Actually Prohibits

Article L1152-1 of the Code du travail is the founding text. It provides that no salarié may suffer repeated acts of harcèlement moral having the object or the effect of degrading their working conditions in a manner capable of harming their rights and their dignity, of altering their physical or mental health, or of compromising their professional future.

Every element of that sentence does work. The acts must be répétés, so the law is aimed at a pattern rather than an isolated outburst. The phrase "object or effect" means the law does not require proof that anyone intended to cause harm. Conduct that produces the degradation falls within the text even where the person responsible would describe their own behaviour as ordinary management.

The consequence limb is written in terms of capability. The working conditions must be degraded in a way that is susceptible of harming rights and dignity, altering health, or compromising a professional future. That is why files in this area so often include medical elements, occupational health records and documents showing changes to duties, tools or reporting lines.

The Code du travail places no restriction on who the author may be. Article L1152-5 provides that any employee who has carried out acts of harcèlement moral is liable to a disciplinary sanction, which applies whether that person is a manager, a peer or a subordinate.

Two Codes, Two Different Functions

It is worth keeping the two codes distinct, because they do different jobs and carry different consequences.

The Code du travail states the prohibition. It governs what the employer must do, what happens to a contract terminated in breach, and what the conseil de prud'hommes can award. It does not send anyone to prison.

The Code pénal carries the criminal penalty. Article 222-33-2 punishes harassing another person by repeated words or conduct having the object or the effect of degrading working conditions in a way capable of harming their rights and dignity, altering their physical or mental health, or compromising their professional future, by two years of imprisonment and a 30,000 euro fine.

There is a second and separate offence that is frequently confused with it. Article 222-33-2-2 covers harassment outside the working relationship, aimed at a degradation of a person's conditions of life resulting in an alteration of their physical or mental health. Its base penalty is one year and 15,000 euros. It rises to two years and 30,000 euros where one of the listed aggravating circumstances applies, including a total incapacity for work of more than eight days, a minor victim, a victim in a situation of particular vulnerability, or acts committed through an online service or electronic medium. Where two of the circumstances listed at 1° to 5° are present, the penalty becomes three years and 45,000 euros. The two articles are not interchangeable.

Article L1152-4 ties them together in a practical way: it requires that the persons concerned be informed of the text of article 222-33-2 of the Code pénal, which is why that article commonly appears in the règlement intérieur or on a workplace notice board.

The Employer's Prevention Obligation

Article L1152-4 requires the employer to take the necessary measures to prevent acts of harcèlement moral. This is a prevention duty, not merely a duty to react once a complaint arrives.

That framing matters because it makes the employer's own conduct a distinct question from the conduct of whoever carried out the acts. An employer that took no preventive steps, or that received a report and did nothing measurable with it, is exposed on its own account, independently of what the alleged author did. This sits alongside the wider obligation to protect the physical and mental health of workers that runs through French health and safety law.

Article L1152-6 adds an optional route: a mediation procedure may be opened, with a mediator chosen by agreement between the parties, who attempts to conciliate and puts written proposals for bringing the situation to an end. Mediation is voluntary and does not close off any other avenue.

How Proof Is Organised Under Article L1154-1

French law does not leave the whole evidential burden on the employee, and it does not remove it either. Article L1154-1 sets up a two stage mechanism.

At the first stage, the employee presents éléments de fait suggesting the existence of harcèlement. These are factual elements, taken together rather than one by one. Written instructions, emails, changes to duties, withdrawal of tools or responsibilities, attendance and medical records and witness statements are the usual categories.

At the second stage, if those elements are established, it falls to the other party to prove that the acts in question do not constitute harcèlement and that its decisions are justified by objective elements unconnected with any harcèlement.

This is an aménagement of the burden of proof, not a reversal. The employee still has to put forward something concrete. What the article changes is that once they do, silence from the other side is not a defence.

Dismissal Linked to Harcèlement: Null, and the Barème Does Not Apply

This is the point that is most often missed, and it is the reason a reader should not stop at a capped compensation table.

Article L1152-3 provides that any rupture of the employment contract occurring in disregard of articles L1152-1 and L1152-2, and any contrary provision or act, is null. Nullity is a stronger outcome than a dismissal held to be without real and serious cause.

The consequence sits in article L1235-3-1. That article states that the capped scale in article L1235-3, the so called barème Macron, is not applicable where the judge finds the dismissal is tainted by one of the listed nullities. Harcèlement moral is expressly among them, alongside discrimination and the violation of a fundamental freedom.

Where the employee does not ask for the contract to continue, or reinstatement is impossible, the judge awards compensation that cannot be less than the salaries of the last six months, with no upper ceiling, and without prejudice to the legal, conventional or contractual severance payment.

The practical significance is hard to overstate. Someone who reads only the capped table on an ordinary wrongful dismissal page, and applies it to a situation where the dismissal is null, will understate the position substantially. The scale binds judges in ordinary cases. In nullity cases it does not apply at all.

Article L1155-2 adds a further criminal layer, punishing discriminatory measures taken against a person because they suffered, refused to suffer, reported or testified in good faith about harcèlement, by one year of imprisonment and a 3,750 euro fine.

Protection for Victims, Witnesses and Those Who Report

Article L1152-2 protects three categories at once: the person who suffered the repeated acts, the person who refused to suffer them, and the person who testified about them or reported them in good faith. None of them may be subjected to the measures set out in article L1121-2, which covers recruitment and access to an internship or in-company training, remuneration, profit-sharing or share awards, training, redeployment, assignment, qualification, classification, promotion, working hours, performance evaluation, transfer, renewal of contract, sanction and dismissal.

Good faith is the operative condition for the reporting and testifying limb. It is not the same as being ultimately proved right.

Where a Report Can Be Made

French law provides several institutions, and they are not alternatives that cancel one another out.

The inspection du travail, part of the DREETS, receives reports about workplace conditions and can investigate and require the employer to act. The médecin du travail is bound by medical confidentiality, can be seen at the employee's own request, and can propose adjustments to the post or an unfitness finding.

The CSE, the comité social et économique, has a right of alert where it observes an infringement of persons' rights, their physical or mental health, or individual liberties in the company, and elected representatives can put the matter to the employer formally.

The conseil de prud'hommes is the labour court that hears the employment side, including nullity of a dismissal and damages. The Défenseur des droits can be contacted where the situation overlaps with discrimination. A criminal complaint is a separate track and is addressed generally on the page about filing a complaint.

Time Limits Are Not the Ordinary Ones

Article L1471-1 sets a twelve month limitation period for actions relating to the rupture of the employment contract. The same article states that this period does not apply to actions brought under articles L1132-1, L1152-1 and L1153-1.

Harcèlement moral claims therefore fall outside the twelve month dismissal deadline and are governed instead by the ordinary five year limitation period for personal actions in article 2224 of the Code civil. Criminal proceedings run on their own separate timetable under the rules governing délits.

Related situations are covered elsewhere on this site, including dismissal for gross misconduct, sick leave and paid leave. The full set of topics is listed on the France employment law hub.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the legal definition of harcèlement moral at work in France?

Article L1152-1 of the Code du travail provides that no salarié may suffer repeated acts of harcèlement moral having the object or the effect of degrading their working conditions in a manner capable of harming their rights and their dignity, of altering their physical or mental health, or of compromising their professional future. Three features matter in that wording. The acts must be repeated, so a single incident however serious is analysed under a different heading. The object or the effect is enough, meaning an intention to harm is not required. And the degradation must be capable of producing one of the listed consequences, which is why medical evidence from a treating physician or the médecin du travail so often appears in these files.

Does the person responsible have to be a manager?

No. The text speaks of a salarié who must not suffer the acts, and it does not restrict who the author may be. French courts have applied the prohibition to acts by a hierarchical superior, by a colleague of equal rank, and by a subordinate. Article L1152-5 confirms this by providing that any employee who has carried out acts of harcèlement moral is liable to a disciplinary sanction. The employer's prevention obligation under article L1152-4 likewise does not depend on the rank of the person concerned.

Is the barème Macron capped compensation table applied where harcèlement is established?

Not where the dismissal is null. Article L1235-3-1 states that the capped scale in article L1235-3 does not apply when the judge finds the dismissal is tainted by one of the listed nullities, and harcèlement moral is one of them. Where reinstatement is not sought or is impossible, the judge awards compensation that cannot be less than the salaries of the last six months, with no upper limit, and without prejudice to the legal or conventional severance payment. This is the single most consequential difference between a harcèlement file and an ordinary contested dismissal, and it is explained further on the wrongful dismissal page.

How long is there to bring a claim?

Article L1471-1 sets a twelve month limit for actions relating to the rupture of the employment contract, but the same article states that this limit does not apply to actions brought under articles L1132-1, L1152-1 and L1153-1. Harcèlement moral claims therefore fall outside the twelve month rule and are governed by the ordinary five year limitation period for personal actions in article 2224 of the Code civil. A criminal complaint follows its own separate timetable under the rules on delits. Because the two tracks run on different clocks, they are usually assessed separately.

What is the difference between article 222-33-2 and article 222-33-2-2 of the Code pénal?

Article 222-33-2 is the workplace offence. It punishes harassing another person by repeated words or conduct having the object or effect of degrading working conditions in a way capable of harming their rights and dignity, altering their physical or mental health, or compromising their professional future, by two years of imprisonment and a 30,000 euro fine. Article 222-33-2-2 is the general offence covering harassment outside that working relationship, degrading a person's living conditions with an effect on their physical or mental health. Its base penalty is one year and 15,000 euros, rising to two years and 30,000 euros where one aggravating circumstance applies, and to three years and 45,000 euros where two of them apply. They are separate offences and should not be merged.