雇佣法中竞业禁止协议无效的援引:土耳其与比利时法律之比较

IF 0.8 Q3 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.54648/ijcl2022015
Didem Yalçıntaş
{"title":"雇佣法中竞业禁止协议无效的援引:土耳其与比利时法律之比较","authors":"Didem Yalçıntaş","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2022015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Can employers invoke the nullity of non-compete agreements concluded with employees? Noncompetition agreements prohibit employees from competing with their employers after the termination of the employment contract. The parties can conclude a non-compete agreement only if the validity conditions laid down in statutory law are met. If not, the agreement may be deemed invalid. The assertion of invalidity by employers may produce some unexpected and unfair detrimental consequences for employees if the agreement is synallagmatic. For instance, employees who count on the validity of the agreement may find themselves denied their expected compensation after turning down opportunities that would breach the agreement and after finding a new non-competing job. Furthermore, the possibility of invoking invalidity afterwards may encourage employers to conclude invalid non-compete agreements, as it would pressure the employee nevertheless. Considering the power of employers over employees and that it is mostly the employers who draft non-compete agreements and offer to conclude them, their capacity to invoke invalidity must be carefully examined. Traditionally, in Turkish law, invalidity can be invoked by either party. However, considering the flexibilization of this norm, this study concludes that for synallagmatic agreements, only employees should be able to invoke invalidity. In Belgian law, on the other hand, the party with the right to invoke invalidity is already determined by case law. The study confines itself to examining these rules and pointing out the possible detrimental effects on employees.\nnon-compete, Turkish law, Belgian law, comparative, validity, nullity, prohibition of competition, invoke, employment law and non-competition","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Invoking the Nullity of Non-compete Agreements in Employment Law: A Comparison of Turkish and Belgian Law\",\"authors\":\"Didem Yalçıntaş\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/ijcl2022015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Can employers invoke the nullity of non-compete agreements concluded with employees? Noncompetition agreements prohibit employees from competing with their employers after the termination of the employment contract. The parties can conclude a non-compete agreement only if the validity conditions laid down in statutory law are met. If not, the agreement may be deemed invalid. The assertion of invalidity by employers may produce some unexpected and unfair detrimental consequences for employees if the agreement is synallagmatic. For instance, employees who count on the validity of the agreement may find themselves denied their expected compensation after turning down opportunities that would breach the agreement and after finding a new non-competing job. Furthermore, the possibility of invoking invalidity afterwards may encourage employers to conclude invalid non-compete agreements, as it would pressure the employee nevertheless. Considering the power of employers over employees and that it is mostly the employers who draft non-compete agreements and offer to conclude them, their capacity to invoke invalidity must be carefully examined. Traditionally, in Turkish law, invalidity can be invoked by either party. However, considering the flexibilization of this norm, this study concludes that for synallagmatic agreements, only employees should be able to invoke invalidity. In Belgian law, on the other hand, the party with the right to invoke invalidity is already determined by case law. The study confines itself to examining these rules and pointing out the possible detrimental effects on employees.\\nnon-compete, Turkish law, Belgian law, comparative, validity, nullity, prohibition of competition, invoke, employment law and non-competition\",\"PeriodicalId\":44213,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2022015\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2022015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

雇主可否援引与雇员订立的竞业禁止协议为无效协议?竞业禁止协议禁止雇员在雇佣合同终止后与雇主竞争。只有在符合成文法规定的有效条件的情况下,双方才能订立竞业禁止协议。否则,该协议将被视为无效。如果协议是合词的,雇主对无效的断言可能会对雇员产生一些意想不到的和不公平的有害后果。例如,指望协议有效的员工可能会发现,在拒绝了违反协议的机会、找到了一份新的非竞争性工作后,他们无法获得预期的薪酬。此外,事后援引无效的可能性可能鼓励雇主缔结无效的竞业禁止协议,因为这将对雇员施加压力。考虑到雇主对雇员的权力,以及主要是雇主起草竞业禁止协议并提出缔结这些协议,必须仔细审查雇主援引竞业禁止协议无效的能力。传统上,在土耳其法律中,无效可以由任何一方援引。然而,考虑到这一规范的灵活性,本研究得出结论,对于synagmatic协议,只有员工才能调用无效。另一方面,在比利时法律中,有权援引无效的一方已经由判例法确定。这项研究仅限于检查这些规则,并指出这些规则可能对员工造成的不利影响。竞业禁止,土耳其法,比利时法,比较,有效性,无效,禁止竞争,援引,就业法和竞业禁止
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Invoking the Nullity of Non-compete Agreements in Employment Law: A Comparison of Turkish and Belgian Law
Can employers invoke the nullity of non-compete agreements concluded with employees? Noncompetition agreements prohibit employees from competing with their employers after the termination of the employment contract. The parties can conclude a non-compete agreement only if the validity conditions laid down in statutory law are met. If not, the agreement may be deemed invalid. The assertion of invalidity by employers may produce some unexpected and unfair detrimental consequences for employees if the agreement is synallagmatic. For instance, employees who count on the validity of the agreement may find themselves denied their expected compensation after turning down opportunities that would breach the agreement and after finding a new non-competing job. Furthermore, the possibility of invoking invalidity afterwards may encourage employers to conclude invalid non-compete agreements, as it would pressure the employee nevertheless. Considering the power of employers over employees and that it is mostly the employers who draft non-compete agreements and offer to conclude them, their capacity to invoke invalidity must be carefully examined. Traditionally, in Turkish law, invalidity can be invoked by either party. However, considering the flexibilization of this norm, this study concludes that for synallagmatic agreements, only employees should be able to invoke invalidity. In Belgian law, on the other hand, the party with the right to invoke invalidity is already determined by case law. The study confines itself to examining these rules and pointing out the possible detrimental effects on employees. non-compete, Turkish law, Belgian law, comparative, validity, nullity, prohibition of competition, invoke, employment law and non-competition
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Published four times a year, the International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations is an essential source of information and analysis for labour lawyers, academics, judges, policymakers and others. The Journal publishes original articles in the domains of labour law (broadly understood) and industrial relations. Articles cover comparative and international (or regional) analysis of topical issues, major developments and innovative practices, as well as discussions of theoretical and methodological approaches. The Journal adopts a double-blind peer review process. A distinguished editorial team, with the support of an International Advisory Board of eminent scholars from around the world, ensures a continuing high standard of scientific research dealing with a range of important issues.
期刊最新文献
Litigating the Algorithmic Boss in the EU: A (Legally) Feasible and (Strategically) Attractive Option for Trade Unions? Modern Slavery in Liner Shipping: An Empirical Analysis of Corporate Statements The Requirement of Fair Negotiation (Gebot des fairen Verhandelns) and the Principle of Undue Influence in German and US Employment Law Regulating Platform Work in the UK and Italy: Politics, Law and Political Economy Regulating Algorithmic Management at Work in the European Union: Data Protection, Non-discrimination and Collective Rights
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1