An employee receives weekly disparaging remarks from their manager, has tasks taken away without explanation, and eventually develops sleep disorders. This type of situation precisely corresponds to what French criminal law qualifies as moral harassment at work, an offense governed by Article 222-33-2 of the penal code.
Institutional moral harassment: the angle that recent case law has opened
You may imagine moral harassment as a conflict between two individuals, a superior and a subordinate. The legal reality now goes further.
In a ruling dated January 21, 2025 (n° 22-87.145), the criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation recognized that management methods at the company level can constitute moral harassment within the meaning of Article 222-33-2. Victims do not need to be individually identified. What matters is that the actions aim to degrade the working conditions of a group of employees.
This notion of institutional moral harassment changes the game for employees facing toxic managerial policies. An aggressive reorganization plan, deliberately unattainable goals imposed on an entire department, systematic pressure on work pace: these practices can now fall under criminal law, even without a direct relationship between the manager and each affected employee.
To delve deeper into the definition of Article 222-33-2 of the penal code, it is essential to understand that the text penalizes both targeted behaviors and degrading collective practices.
Constituent elements of the offense of moral harassment at work
Article 222-33-2 is based on three pillars. If one is missing, the offense is not characterized.
Repeated remarks or behaviors
The text requires repetition. An isolated incident, even serious, is not enough. There must be at least two distinct facts for the condition of repetition to be met. These facts can be of different natures: a humiliating remark followed by professional sidelining, for example.
However, the law of August 3, 2018 introduced a nuance. When several individuals each commit a unique act but in a concerted manner, the repeated nature is recognized by adding individual behaviors. This is the principle of pack harassment.
Deterioration of working conditions
The text targets actions that have the object or effect of deteriorating working conditions. This distinction is crucial from an evidentiary standpoint:
- When the actions have the object of deterioration, it is not necessary to prove a concrete result on the victim’s health or career. Intent is sufficient.
- When invoking the effect, the victim must demonstrate a real harm: medical certificates, work stoppages, testimonies from colleagues about professional isolation.
- In both cases, the deterioration must be likely to harm the rights, dignity, physical or mental health of the person, or compromise their professional future.
Causal link
The behaviors must be the cause of the observed deterioration. An employee going through personal difficulties unrelated to their employer’s attitude cannot invoke Article 222-33-2 for these difficulties. The judge always checks the link between the alleged acts and their consequences.
Penalties under criminal law
Moral harassment at work is punishable by two years of imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 euros.
The perpetrator is not necessarily the superior. The article applies to anyone in the professional environment: colleagues at the same level, subordinates, external service providers regularly working in the company. The hierarchical link is not a condition of the offense.
Proving moral harassment: what the criminal judge concretely expects
Proof remains the tipping point for most cases. In criminal matters, it is up to the public prosecutor or the civil party to establish the facts.
Unlike labor law (before labor courts), where the employee presents evidence and the employer must prove that their decisions were justified, the criminal judge requires a more direct demonstration. Here are the elements that weigh in a case:
- Emails, messages, or written notes containing disparaging remarks, contradictory orders, or veiled threats
- Testimonies from colleagues describing specific, dated incidents with factual details
- A coherent medical history: consultations with the occupational physician, sick leaves, psychological follow-up started after the first incidents
- Reports of professional interviews showing a sudden change in evaluation without objective justification
A common pitfall is to accumulate vague elements (general malaise, tense atmosphere) without linking them to specific, dated facts. The criminal judge reasons on identified acts, not on an atmosphere.
Distinction between moral harassment at work and general moral harassment
Article 222-33-2 exclusively concerns the professional framework. Moral harassment committed outside of work falls under Article 222-33-2-2 of the penal code, which covers everyday life situations (neighborhood, friendships, family conflicts outside of couples).
Harassment within a couple has its own text: Article 222-33-2-1. School harassment is addressed by Article 222-33-2-3. Each text adapts penalties and aggravating circumstances to the specific context.
This variation can create confusion, but the logic is simple: the context in which the acts occur determines the applicable text. The same repeated behavior may fall under different texts depending on whether it occurs at the office, at home, or online.
The recognition of institutional moral harassment by the Court of Cassation in 2025 shows that Article 222-33-2 continues to evolve. For anyone facing degrading practices at work, the first step remains to document the facts accurately, date by date, even before consulting a criminal lawyer.
