2016/27 Employers must compensate employees separately for restricting their right to work for others, not only after, but also during their employment (LI)

Following the latest case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, it is not enough to state that an employee cannot work for a competitor during their employment. It is necessary to pay compensation in order for the non-compete obligation to be legally enforceable, because of the onerous nature of the obligation.

2016/12 ‘Independent contractors’ working in a subordinate relationship may in reality be employees (FR)

An ‘independent contractor’ working for a company in a subordinate relationship should be considered as a de facto employee. In such a situation, the company and its legal representatives can be held liable for ‘concealed work’ and be subject to criminal penalties.

2016/7 The prohibition against gender-based discrimination applies to self-employed contractors (HU)

In accordance with EU law, the prohibition against gender-based discrimination (in this case: dismissal relating to pregnancy) cannot be limited to employment relationships as defined in national law: it must also apply to other types of legal relationship, where one party provides services to another party for consideration, for an open-ended period of time under the supervision of a principal.

2016/7 The prohibition against gender-based discrimination applies to self-employed contractors (HU)

In accordance with EU law, the prohibition against gender-based discrimination (in this case: dismissal relating to pregnancy) cannot be limited to employment relationships as defined in national law: it must also apply to other types of legal relationship, where one party provides services to another party for consideration, for an open-ended period of time under the supervision of a principal.

2016/12 ‘Independent contractors’ working in a subordinate relationship may in reality be employees (FR)

An ‘independent contractor’ working for a company in a subordinate relationship should be considered as a de facto employee. In such a situation, the company and its legal representatives can be held liable for ‘concealed work’ and be subject to criminal penalties.

2015/56 Constitutional Court: legislation regulating and standardising unfair dismissal damages unconstitutional (FR)

On 10 July 2015, following over 400 hours of debate in Parliament, France adopted far-reaching legislation commonly known as the loi Macron, named after the Minister of Finance Emmanuel Macron. The law, which was highly controversial, was adopted without a vote in Parliament on the basis of a rarely used prerogative of the government (thereby risking a vote of no confidence) . A group of over 60 members of Parliament applied to the Conseil constitutionel to have a host of provisions of the law declared unconstitutional.

Although the vast majority of the loi Macron passed the constitutionality test, some provisions were declared unconstitutional. They therefore did not enter into force. One was Article 266, which would have brought more predictability for employers in respect of the amount of compensation they need to pay unfairly dismissed employees. The government is now preparing a new effort to achieve predictability.

2015/56 Constitutional Court: legislation regulating and standardising unfair dismissal damages unconstitutional (FR)

On 10 July 2015, following over 400 hours of debate in Parliament, France adopted far-reaching legislation commonly known as the loi Macron, named after the Minister of Finance Emmanuel Macron. The law, which was highly controversial, was adopted without a vote in Parliament on the basis of a rarely used prerogative of the government (thereby risking a vote of no confidence) . A group of over 60 members of Parliament applied to the Conseil constitutionel to have a host of provisions of the law declared unconstitutional.

Although the vast majority of the loi Macron passed the constitutionality test, some provisions were declared unconstitutional. They therefore did not enter into force. One was Article 266, which would have brought more predictability for employers in respect of the amount of compensation they need to pay unfairly dismissed employees. The government is now preparing a new effort to achieve predictability.

2015/47 Former employee bound by confidentiality clause for one year unless other duration agreed (LI)

The Lithuanian Law on Competition states that persons who, as a result of a contractual relationship with a business, have knowledge of a commercial secret may not use this information for at least one year after termination of that relationship, unless a statutory or contractual provision states otherwise. Until a recent Supreme Court judgment, it was widely held that the Law on Competition, including the one year period during which confidential information could not be used, applied only to enterprises, not to individuals (natural persons). It is now settled case law that, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, employees are bound by a duty of confidentiality for at least one year following termination of their contract.

<p><strong>2015/47 Former employee bound by confidentiality clause for one year unless other duration agreed (LI)</strong></p>

The Lithuanian Law on Competition states that persons who, as a result of a contractual relationship with a business, have knowledge of a commercial secret may not use this information for at least one year after termination of that relationship, unless a statutory or contractual provision states otherwise. Until a recent Supreme Court judgment, it was widely held that the Law on Competition, including the one year period during which confidential information could not be used, applied only to enterprises, not to individuals (natural persons). It is now settled case law that, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, employees are bound by a duty of confidentiality for at least one year following termination of their contract.

2015/48 Supreme Court clarifies definition and scope of ‘customer protection’ clause (FR)

A clause preventing a former employee, for a fixed period of time, from dealing directly or indirectly, with his former employer’s clients is a non-compete clause and must, therefore, meet certain requirements established by French case law, in order to be valid. A former employee who refrains from competing against his former employer on account of an invalid non-compete obligation, believing it to be valid, is entitled to compensation.