CASE COMMENT: RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES - NON COMPETE PROVISION - UNFAIR PRACTICES

Non-Compete: The Court of Cassation rules on the recourse to unfair trading provisions in the case of a void non-compete clause (Forlin/Arve Intérim)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Cass. soc. 24 May 2005, M. Forlin and a. c/ SA Arve Intérim, n° 03-43.471 In so far as it confirms the possibility for an employer to bring a double action in unfair competition against not only its former employees but also against the competing undertaking which the latter have founded, the judgment of 24 May deserves to be noted (for a first comment, see JCP Social 2005, jurispr. Relations individuelles, 1004, note J.-F. Cesaro). In a judgment of 28 January, the subject of a previous commentary in the context of this column (this review, No. 2-2005, Chronique Pratiques restrictives, p. 68, note D.), the Court of Appeal of the French Republic ruled that

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • University Littoral-Cote d’Opale (Boulogne)

Quotation

Daniel Fasquelle, Non-Compete: The Court of Cassation rules on the recourse to unfair trading provisions in the case of a void non-compete clause (Forlin/Arve Intérim), 24 May 2005, Concurrences N° 3-2005, Art. N° 1088, pp. 89-90

Visites 5885

All reviews