{"id":28993,"date":"2026-07-02T13:12:04","date_gmt":"2026-07-02T11:12:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/?p=28993"},"modified":"2026-07-02T13:12:04","modified_gmt":"2026-07-02T11:12:04","slug":"vehicule-de-fonction-le-salarie-peut-etre-tenu-au-paiement-dun-complement-differentiel-apres-la-rupture-du-contrat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/vehicule-de-fonction-le-salarie-peut-etre-tenu-au-paiement-dun-complement-differentiel-apres-la-rupture-du-contrat\/","title":{"rendered":"V\u00e9hicule de fonction : le salari\u00e9 peut \u00eatre tenu au paiement d\u2019un compl\u00e9ment diff\u00e9rentiel apr\u00e8s la rupture du contrat"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"ql-align-justify\">Par un arr\u00eat du 3 juin 2026, la chambre sociale de la Cour de cassation approuve la condamnation d\u2019une salari\u00e9e \u00e0 verser \u00e0 son ancien employeur une somme au titre du compl\u00e9ment diff\u00e9rentiel pr\u00e9vu par un avenant relatif aux conditions de mise \u00e0 disposition de son v\u00e9hicule de fonction.<\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u00a0<\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\">En l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, la salari\u00e9e avait choisi le b\u00e9n\u00e9fice d\u2019un v\u00e9hicule de fonction exc\u00e9dant la valeur de l\u2019avantage que l\u2019employeur s\u2019\u00e9tait engag\u00e9 \u00e0 lui fournir. En contrepartie, elle devait payer une partie des loyers correspondant au surco\u00fbt de la location pour l\u2019employeur. \u00c0 la rupture du contrat de travail, un compl\u00e9ment diff\u00e9rentiel correspondant \u00e0 la part des loyers restant dus jusqu\u2019au terme du contrat de location a \u00e9t\u00e9 mis \u00e0 sa charge.<\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u00a0<\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\">La salari\u00e9e soutenait que cette stipulation portait atteinte \u00e0 sa libert\u00e9 de d\u00e9missionner et que l\u2019avenant relatif au v\u00e9hicule de fonction ne pouvait demeurer opposable apr\u00e8s la rupture du contrat de travail.<\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\">\u00a0<\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\">La Cour de cassation rejette le pourvoi. <\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\"><\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\">Elle retient, d\u2019une part, que la salari\u00e9e n\u2019avait pas \u00e9t\u00e9 concr\u00e8tement, en raison du paiement du compl\u00e9ment diff\u00e9rentiel, emp\u00each\u00e9e de rompre son contrat de travail, puisqu\u2019elle avait d\u00e9missionn\u00e9 treize mois apr\u00e8s la conclusion de l\u2019avenant. La clause litigieuse ne portait donc pas atteinte \u00e0 sa libert\u00e9 de d\u00e9missionner. <\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\"><\/p>\n<p class=\"ql-align-justify\">D\u2019autre part, la Cour rel\u00e8ve que la salari\u00e9e avait opt\u00e9 pour un mod\u00e8le sp\u00e9cifique de v\u00e9hicule de fonction, moyennant une contrepartie p\u00e9cuniaire, de sorte que le surco\u00fbt de la location r\u00e9sultant du choix par la salari\u00e9e de ce v\u00e9hicule n\u2019\u00e9tait pas l\u2019accessoire du contrat de travail.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/juri\/id\/JURITEXT000054256161\" target=\"_blank\" style=\"color: rgb(0, 124, 186);\">Cass. soc., 3 juin 2026, n\u00b0 25-11.373<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Par un arr\u00eat du 3 juin 2026, la chambre sociale de la Cour de cassation approuve la condamnation d\u2019une salari\u00e9e \u00e0 verser \u00e0 son ancien employeur une somme au titre du compl\u00e9ment diff\u00e9rentiel pr\u00e9vu par un avenant relatif aux conditions de mise \u00e0 disposition de son v\u00e9hicule de fonction. \u00a0 En l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, la salari\u00e9e avait [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":28991,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_seopress_news_disabled":"","_seopress_video_disabled":"","_seopress_video":[],"_seopress_pro_schemas_manual":[],"_seopress_pro_rich_snippets_disable_all":"","_seopress_pro_rich_snippets_disable":[],"_seopress_pro_schemas":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28993","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-actualites-en-droit-social"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28993","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28993"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28993\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28995,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28993\/revisions\/28995"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/28991"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28993"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28993"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28993"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}