The right to disconnect, a right with no predefined content
France wrote it into the labour code in 2016. The text creates an obligation to negotiate rather than a directly applicable rule.
What the law provides
The 2016 act places the terms for exercising the right to disconnect among the topics of the compulsory annual negotiation on quality of working life, in firms where that negotiation applies.
Failing an agreement, the employer must draw up a charter after consulting staff representatives. The text therefore sets no time slot and no precise prohibition: it imposes a framework for discussion.
That choice was defended as a way of adapting the rule to very different activities, since a newsroom and a hospital do not face the same constraints. It was criticised for the opposite reason: a right whose content depends on negotiation varies with the local balance of power.
Prior case law
The Court of Cassation had already held, before 2016, that not answering a request outside working time could not ground a sanction, and that time spent answering could constitute effective working time.
The right therefore existed in substance before being named. The act mainly produced a procedural obligation and visibility for the subject, following a report submitted to the government in 2015 on digital transformation and working life.
What European law adds
The working time directive sets minimum daily and weekly rest periods. The Court of Justice of the European Union has specified in several decisions the conditions under which an on-call period constitutes working time.
Those decisions turn on the degree of constraint weighing on the person during the period, a more demanding criterion than mere theoretical availability, and they apply to situations of permanent connection.
The European Parliament also adopted in 2021 a resolution calling for a specific directive on the right to disconnect. A resolution is not binding: it opens a procedure without creating any obligation by itself.
What surveys measure
European working conditions surveys measure the frequency of working during free time. They find high prevalence among managers and in business service activities.
Work distinguishing felt obligation from actual practice finds that anticipating a request produces measurable effects even in the absence of an actual request. It also notes that some of the people concerned describe this availability as a welcome flexibility, which complicates any uniform rule.
What is not known
No large-scale evaluation of the charters and agreements concluded since 2016 has been published in France. There is therefore no measure of their effect on practices.
Technical arrangements, server blocking or delayed sending, have been the subject of occasional in-company studies whose results are internal and not comparable. Nor is it established that blocking reduces the workload rather than shifting it to other times.
Key points
The 2016 act creates an obligation to negotiate, not a directly applicable rule.
Case law already protected non-response outside working time before the act.
No large-scale evaluation of the agreements concluded since has been published.
This article describes documented mechanisms and disagreements. It recommends no position, no party and no vote, and commits to no reading other than that of the work it cites.
And you, where do you stand?
The Civix test situates your convictions on six dimensions and matches you with one of the twelve profiles, without ever telling you what to think.
Start my test