Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Non-Competition Law in France and the EU

By Patrick Thi'bart
October 01, 2003

In France, like in the U.S., covenants not to compete are not prohibited per se. They are unlawful only if they create unreasonable restraints upon employees' freedom to work. In the same way, Article 340 of the Swiss Code of Obligations and Article 2125 of the Italian Civil Code do no prohibit employment agreements that limit employees' rights to perform their activities to subsequent employers, provided that the scope of the restrictions do not prevent employees from finding an alternate job.

However, in the international arena, U.S. employers should refrain from seeking to blindly impose the “American way” of drafting and implementing restrictive covenants in an attempt to harmonize their employees' working conditions all over the world. Indeed, there is simply no such a thing as a standard restrictive covenant that could be implemented whatever the location of the workplace in the world. More generally, U.S. companies that choose to “go global” should never forget that employment laws in the international arena significantly differ according to the legal, social, political and economic background in each country. While employment relationships in the U.S. are governed by private arrangements that are voluntarily entered into between employers and employees, they generally consist, in other industrialized countries, of a comprehensive and paternalistic set of legal rules the main purpose of which are to protect employees in their subordinate relations vis-'-vis their employers. Consequently, most employment laws in industrialized countries and in particular in Western Europe are more employee-friendly than U.S. employment law (including California law).

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing Image

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.