II PK 126/06
AI generated
Non-competition agreement damages claim dismissed; termination right requires explicit time limit per Civil Code.
Poland (PL)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court partially allowed the plaintiff's claim for damages under a non-competition agreement while dismissing the portion based on unjust enrichment. The court found that the employer's right to terminate the agreement lacked a specific time limit, rendering that clause void under the Civil Code. Consequently, the plaintiff could not claim damages for the tax loss resulting from the employer's ability to terminate the agreement at any time.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 1012 k.p.; Art. 395 § 1 k.c.: The right to terminate a non-competition agreement must be explicitly defined with a specific time limit; otherwise, the clause is void due to legal uncertainty.
Keywords
AI generated
non-competition agreement
termination right
Civil Code provisions
unjust enrichment claim
damages calculation
void contract clause
legal uncertainty
Cited Legislation
AI generatedArt. 1012 k.p.
Art. 405 k.c.
Art. 300 k.p.
Art. 395 § 1 k.c.
Art. 58 k.c.
Art. 398 § 14 k.p.c.
Art. 398 § 16 k.p.c.
Art. 100 k.p.c.
Art. 108 § 1 k.p.c.
Art. 398 § 21 k.p.c.
Cited Case Law
AI generatedI PK 16/02
Supreme Court allows employer's right to terminate non-compete agreement post-employment under Civil Code.
I PK 139/02
Supreme Court allows non-competition agreement termination by employer if specific pre-agreed conditions are met.
I PK 528/02
Non-compete penalty clauses are valid under civil law but must be adjusted by labor law principles.
III CZP 46/95
I CK 42/03
I PK 398/03