Non-compete clause during and after probationary period in Amsterdam

In the vibrant labour market of Amsterdam, a non-compete clause tied to the probationary period is risky, especially in tech startups and creative sectors along the Zuidas. If the probationary period is null and void, the clause may be partially invalid, particularly if it is disproportionately burdensome (Article 7:653 DCC). During a valid probationary period, a clause is permitted, but after its expiry, stricter requirements apply: recorded in writing, with a penalty clause and reasonable duration (maximum one year). In case of nullity under Article 7:667c DCC, the probationary period clause lapses, while the main contract remains intact. Amsterdam judges, such as the Amsterdam District Court, strictly review for abuse of circumstances. In ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:4564, the court annulled a clause following an invalid probationary period at a startup in the Jordaan, because it blocked the employee from switching to fintech competitors in the Vijfhoek. Employers in Amsterdam must decouple the clause from the probationary period to avoid disputes at the subdistrict court at the IJdok. Employees: challenge the clause when switching to a competitor in the Amsterdam talent harbour. Practice in the city often shows abuse through vague wording in contracts of scale-ups. Advice: have it assessed by an Amsterdam employment lawyer; negotiate a penalty exemption. The 2024 legislative amendment relaxes rules for starters, but offers no relief in cases of nullity. This way, you avoid legal pitfalls in the dynamic labour mobility of Amsterdam, where freedom of talent is crucial. (248 words)