As regards the problem of the excessively wide interpretation of the legal restrictions which are applicable in our country against agreements not to compete with one's employer after the conclusion of the employment relationship, the Italian Court of Cassation has established some important principles, as a result of a recent case (judgement no. 10062/94).
In particular, the Court of Cassation has recognised the principle under which even widely defined territory and activity forming the object of a non-competition agreement do not, in themselves, cause the agreement to be void, but it is necessary, instead, to consider the circumstances of the case in question, or rather the particular professional background of the employee, so that one agreement which is considered void in respect of one employee may be considered reasonable and valid in respect of another.
From this, derives the consequence that the adequateness compensation agreed must not be determined a priori, but considered on a case-by-case basis, with reference to the sacrifice being imposed: so that, also in this case, the same compensation that is judged to be unsuitable in certain cases, may be appropriate in relation to other subjects, for whom the agreement entered into does not involve a salient sacrifice to their right to pursue a professional career. The innovative nature of the decision stands out, above all, in the sense of its overcoming the previous tendency in case law to inflict nullity on non-competition agreements by appreciating in abstract the alleged excessive width of the object of the agreement and of the territory provided, or the scantiness of the compensation agreed, instead of relating to the individual professional standing and the actual position of the employee concerned.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Where standard printed terms and conditions of a contract are inconsistent with its special terms and conditions, the special conditions will prevail so as not to defeat the main object and intention of the contract.
Following the decision in the Mercury Case, a practice of ‘virtual signings and closings' has developed to avoid the logistical problems in getting a document signed.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).