II PK 39/06
KI-generiert
Non-compete ban covers planned activities; scope must be specified in the contract.
Polen (PL)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against a lower court ruling that upheld a non-compete clause. The plaintiff sought damages for the employee's breach of a non-compete agreement, while the employee argued the ban was too broad. The court held that a non-compete restriction can cover both actual and planned activities of the employer, provided the scope is concretely defined in the contract.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiertKodeks pracy art. 1011 § 1; Kodeks cywilny art. 3531, 65 § 1, 2; A non-compete ban may apply to planned activities of the employer, and the scope of prohibited actions must be concretely specified in the contract.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiert
non-compete agreement
planned activities
contract specification
employee liability
market competition
substitute goods
labor law
Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertKodeks pracy art. 1011 § 1
Kodeks cywilny art. 3531
Kodeks cywilny art. 65 § 1
Kodeks cywilny art. 65 § 2
Kodeks postępowania cywilnego art. 398 § 1
Kodeks postępowania cywilnego art. 108 § 2
Kodeks postępowania cywilnego art. 398 § 2
art. 1012 k.p
art. 58 k.c
art. 3531 k.c
Zitierte Rechtsprechung
KI-generiertI PKN 579/98
Supreme Court allows expulsion from cooperative for working for a competitor without board approval.
I PKN 221/01
Non-compete clause must match employer's business scope; non-competes do not violate a doctor's profession essence.
I PK 411/02
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; refusal to sign non-compete contract justifies valid employment termination under Polish Labor Code.