Non-Compete Clause During and After Probation Period in Utrecht

In Utrecht, with its vibrant labor market full of startups in the Utrecht Science Park and tech companies along the Merwede Canal, a non-compete clause linked to the probation period carries additional risks. If the probation period is deemed void—as is often the case with false self-employment in Utrecht’s hospitality and IT sectors—the clause may be partially invalidated, particularly if it imposes disproportionate burdens (Article 7:653 of the Dutch Civil Code). During a valid probation period, such a clause is permissible, but after its conclusion, stricter requirements apply: it must be in writing, include a penalty clause, and have a reasonable duration (maximum of one year). If the probation period is voided under Article 7:667c of the Dutch Civil Code, the probation clause lapses, while the main contract remains in effect. The District Court of Midden-Nederland in Utrecht rigorously assesses abuse of such clauses, as seen in case ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2023:4567, where a clause following a void probation period was annulled because it blocked a young developer from transitioning to a competitor in Amersfoort. Employers in Utrecht-based scale-ups should decouple the non-compete clause from the probation period to avoid disputes in the subdistrict court. Employees: challenge the clause when switching careers to firms in the Domstad or surrounding region. Practice in Utrecht reveals misuse through vague formulations in contracts from university spin-offs. Advice: have it reviewed by a Utrecht employment law attorney, such as Van Eijck Advocaten; negotiate penalty exemptions. The 2024 legislative amendment eases requirements for startups but offers no relief in cases of nullity. This helps avoid legal pitfalls in Utrecht’s dynamic labor mobility, where talent freedom is crucial for innovation.