The European professionals of Andersen, from over 20 different jurisdictions, have published the latest edition of the Employment Insights newsletter, featuring key updates from the world of Employment Law.<\/p>\n
In this issue, Magdalena Patryas, Partner at Andersen Poland, addresses the topic of non-compete clauses<\/strong> and the approach adopted by the Maltese courts, in collaboration with Dr. Charlene Mifsud, Partner at Chetcuti Cauchi Advocates and a member of Andersen Global.<\/p>\n Dr. Charlene Mifsud explained that Malta does not have specific legislation regulating non-compete clauses in employment contracts. The analysis carried out by the courts is based on general provisions of the Civil Code regarding contracts and obligations.<\/p>\n Maltese courts have often ruled that non-compete clauses<\/strong> included by employers in employment contracts are legitimate if they are drafted in a sufficiently clear and reasonable manner<\/strong>, particularly regarding duration and scope, thus achieving a proportional balance between the interests of the employer and the employee.<\/p>\n The Maltese approach differs from that of other European jurisdictions also because it does not impose an obligation on the employer to pay compensation to the employee for the application of non-compete clauses. Despite the lack of codified rules, the Maltese courts apply a proportionality analysis<\/strong> in practice, focusing on the evaluation of the commercial interests to be protected and the restrictions imposed by the clause. In fact, the practical outcome of Maltese judicial decisions often reflects fundamental principles common to other EU jurisdictions.<\/p>\n Among the most noteworthy cases is the key ruling Antonio\u2019s BarberShop v. Salvatore Sicurella<\/em>, which clarified that employers cannot rely on generic and standard non-compete clauses, but must demonstrate the necessity of restrictions tailored to the employee’s specific role.<\/p>\n For these reasons, Dr. Charlene Mifsud advises employers to be cautious not to impose unnecessarily long restriction periods, especially in the absence of strong justification.<\/p>\n Different from non-compete clauses are customer poaching clauses<\/strong>, which aim to prevent an employee from approaching the employer’s clients for a certain period after the employment relationship ends. According to Maltese practice, such clauses are considered reasonable and therefore valid and enforceable by the courts, as they are directly connected to the protection of legitimate commercial interests<\/strong> and specific clients with whom the employee has had dealings, and they do not prevent the employee from practicing their profession entirely.<\/p>\n You can find the full contribution on page 6 of the newsletter<\/a>.<\/p>\nLabor Law Developments in Italy<\/h2>\n