Regular readers of our articles will know that this is a recurring topic: the non-competition clause. This week, we discuss a ruling by the Amsterdam District Court, which centres on the question: can an employer prohibit a former employee from taking up employment with a competitor?

What is the case about?

A hearing aid dispenser at Beter Horen B.V. had an employment contract containing a non-competition clause for a period of two years, with a penalty clause attached. In September 2025, the employee terminated his employment contract to take up a position with a competing company in the hearing solutions sector.

Prior to his departure, Beter Horen did, however, offer to make an exception to the non-competition clause, so that the hearing aid dispenser could work for the new employer at location A from 1 January 2026 to 1 January 2027 and at location B from 1 January 2027 onwards.

However, the hearing aid dispenser actually starts working for his new employer in location B as early as 3 November 2025. When Beter Horen becomes aware of this, a summons, discussions and correspondence are followed by summary proceedings before the subdistrict court. In these proceedings, Beter Horen claims, among other things, that the hearing aid dispenser cease his work for the competitor in location B for one year, subject to a periodic penalty payment. Beter Horen also claims an advance on penalties of €99,000.

The summary proceedings are not only directed against the hearing care professional, but also against his new employer. Among other things, Beter Horen seeks an injunction prohibiting the new employer from utilising the hearing aid dispenser’s services at the branch in location B, subject to a periodic penalty payment.

The hearing aid dispenser argues that the non-competition clause cannot be invoked, as it is not plausible that the transfer of a hearing aid dispenser in an operational role would lead to a detriment to the company’s turnover. In the alternative, the hearing care professional argues that his personal and financial interests must outweigh the business interests of Beter Horen. The hearing aid dispenser also requests the subdistrict court to reduce the fines to zero, or at least to a lower amount.

Furthermore, the employee brings a counterclaim: suspension of the non-competition clause, or alternatively, the award of a monthly allowance for the period during which the non-competition clause applies.

What is the subdistrict court’s ruling?

The subdistrict court rules that Beter Horen has a sufficiently compelling interest in the claim being granted, as this is necessary to protect its business turnover. The market is highly competitive, customer relationships are personal, the employee possesses specific confidential knowledge of customers which gives the new employer a competitive advantage, and the competitor is located a short distance from the employer. Nor is the employee unfairly disadvantaged, as he can also work for the same competitor at another business location.

Conclusion: the employee is indeed prohibited from working in the relevant location for his new employer for a period of one year. The subdistrict court imposed a periodic penalty payment of €500 per day in connection with this. However, the very high fine claimed by Beter Horen is rejected. After all, this is a summary proceeding, and in such cases there must be a matter of immediate urgency. Beter Horen has not demonstrated this.

The new employer may no longer make use of the hearing aid dispenser’s services in the relevant location. A penalty payment is also attached to this.

The employee’s counterclaims, including the award of compensation for the duration of the non-competition clause, are dismissed.

You can read the judgment here.

Conclusion

We regularly hear that employees with a non-competition clause think “it won’t be as bad as it seems”. This case shows that employers can indeed hold their former employees to this clause. What stands out in this case is the clear and specific reasoning put forward by Beter Horen, which enabled the court to carry out a concrete assessment of Beter Horen’s interest in holding the former employee to the non-competition clause.

Please note: the rules surrounding non-competition clauses may be subject to change in the future! The Bill on the modernisation of non-competition clauses provides, amongst other things, that both the duration and the scope of the non-competition clause will be limited, and that employers must pay compensation if they wish to hold an employee to the clause. For the time being, this legislative proposal still in the future. As soon as we have more information, the employment law team at SPEE advocaten & mediation will of course inform you. Do you have any questions on this subject? We would be happy to assist you.