Article 222-33-2 of the French Criminal Code punishes workplace bullying with two years’ imprisonment and a €30,000 fine. Introduced by the Act of 17 January 2002 and strengthened by the Act of 6 August 2012, it rests on three pillars: repeated words or conduct, a deterioration in working conditions, and an infringement of the victim’s rights or dignity, or harm to their health.
To understand the true scope of this offence, it is important to see how case law interprets each of these elements.
Workplace bullying and domestic abuse: two provisions, two legal frameworks
Article 222-33-2 applies to workplace relationships. Article 222-33-2-1, introduced by the Act of 9 July 2010 and extended to former spouses and partners by the Act of 4 August 2014, covers domestic and post-separation relationships. Confusing the two can lead to a flawed legal analysis of a case.
| Criterion | Art. 222-33-2 (workplace) | Art. 222-33-2-1 (couples / former partners) |
|---|---|---|
| Context | Professional relationships (employer, colleague, management) | Spouse, civil partner, cohabiting partner, including former partners |
| Required effect | Deterioration in working conditions | Deterioration in living conditions |
| Consequences covered | Infringement of rights or dignity, harm to physical or mental health, or jeopardising the victim’s career prospects | Harm to physical or mental health |
| Basic penalty | 2 years’ imprisonment, €30,000 fine | Aggravated penalties may apply in cases involving total incapacity for work |
| Original legislation | Act of 17 January 2002 | Act of 9 July 2010 |
The table highlights a fundamental difference: the workplace provision requires a deterioration in working conditions, whereas the domestic abuse provision concerns overall living conditions. This distinction determines the type of evidence that needs to be gathered.
To explore the definition of Article 222-33-2 of the French Criminal Code, it is first necessary to identify the constituent elements that case law has gradually clarified.
Elements of the offence: what case law requires
The provision refers to “repeated words or conduct”. The Act of 4 August 2014 replaced the term “acts” with this broader wording. Three cumulative conditions must be met to establish the offence.
- Repeated conduct: a single act is not enough, but repeated conduct can be of the same kind. The Social Chamber of the Court of Cassation confirmed this on 14 November 2024, rejecting the view that a variety of acts must be demonstrated.
- Deterioration in working conditions: this must be established or, at the very least, be liable to occur. The provision covers a potential effect, not just proven harm.
- Resulting infringement or harm: this may affect the victim’s rights, dignity, physical or mental health, or career prospects. Any one of these criteria is sufficient.
The judge’s overall assessment of the facts
The judge cannot examine each incident in isolation and conclude that none amounts to bullying on its own. In a judgment dated 28 September 2022 (appeal no. 20-22.116), the Court of Cassation reiterated that medical evidence must not be excluded from the assessment, even if it does not, by itself, prove bullying. Medical certificates, sick leave records and statements from colleagues all form part of a body of evidence that the judge assesses as a whole.
Intent: awareness rather than an intention to cause harm
The offence of workplace bullying does not require proof of an intention to cause harm. What matters is whether the perpetrator was aware that the repeated acts were causing, or were liable to cause, a deterioration. This distinction has direct practical consequences: a manager who systematically overloads an employee with tasks unrelated to their job description may be prosecuted, even if they deny any malicious intent.
Criminal penalties and the employer’s duty to prevent bullying
Article 222-33-2 provides for two years’ imprisonment and a €30,000 fine. The Act of 6 August 2012 doubled these maximum penalties compared with the original 2002 wording, which provided for one year’s imprisonment and a €15,000 fine.
In civil proceedings, the victim may also claim damages before the employment tribunal alongside the criminal proceedings. The two routes are not mutually exclusive.
Prevention: a duty separate from establishing that bullying occurred
An employer may be held liable for failing to meet its duty to prevent occupational risks, even if the judge ultimately finds that workplace bullying has not been established. The duty to prevent and the prohibition on bullying are based on two distinct legal grounds. Failure to conduct an internal investigation after a report has been made is a serious indication of negligence, although it does not automatically establish liability.
This distinction means that an employer cannot simply wait for the outcome of legal proceedings before taking action. The French Labour Code requires employers to implement preventive, information and training measures.
Limitation periods and burden of proof in workplace bullying cases
The repeated nature of the conduct plays a decisive role in determining the limitation period: the period starts on the date of the last established incident, not the first.
In proceedings before the employment tribunal, the burden of proof is adjusted. The employee must present evidence suggesting that bullying has occurred. The employer must then show that the conduct in question was justified by objective factors unrelated to any bullying. This evidentiary mechanism, set out in the French Labour Code, makes it easier for victims to access justice without completely reversing the presumption of innocence.
Article 222-33-2 of the French Criminal Code should not be read in isolation. Its interaction with Articles 222-33-2-1 (domestic relationships), L. 1152-1 of the French Labour Code (civil proceedings) and the general duty to prevent risks forms a framework in which each provision addresses a distinct situation. Choosing the correct provision and legal basis is crucial to the outcome of the proceedings.
