Non-competition (non-compete) clauses came into the spotlight this year as the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) decided to impose a broad ban on their use. The underlying motive for this is the perception that the non-compete clauses, in the words of FTC Chair Lina Khan, keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism, including from the more than 8,500 new start-ups that would be created a year once non-competes are banned. However, this rule quickly faced challenges, including a lawsuit from the US Chamber of Commerce, which argued that it was unfounded and that the FTC exceeded its authority.

Competition clauses are found in a number of European jurisdictions. Slovak legislation on post-employment non-compete clauses is characterized by: the obligation to agree on a non-compete clause in an employment contract, the possibility to agree on it only with a certain type of employee, time limitation, and remuneration.

The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE Regulations) were incorporated in their current form into the laws of the European Union (EU) with Directive 2001/23/EC of March 12, 2001 (TUPE Directive), with Croatia ensuring its transposition in its legal system via the Labor Act (albeit with a few missed opportunities). Although TUPE Regulations are relatively simple to comprehend, with the main goal being the protection of employee rights in the event of a transfer of an undertaking, business, or part of an undertaking or business as a result of a legal transfer or merger, their application in practice raises many questions to which statutory provisions of Croatian law do not provide an answer.

Over the summer, numerous major employers in Lithuania had either terminated or tightened their hybrid work policies, mandating employees to be present in the office for at least three days per week. This shift is in line with global trends, particularly among technology companies, which have largely abandoned remote work arrangements. Since the pandemic ended, many companies have gradually moved their workforce back to the office, citing decreased productivity and employee engagement as primary reasons for this shift.

The question of who owns intellectual property (IP) rights in the workplace has gained significant relevance, especially given that employees are involved in extensive creative activity nowadays. The Moldovan legal framework has well-defined rules on this subject, providing insight into the important question: who holds the rights over the creations, inventions, industrial designs, and utility models created by employees?

Recent rulings of the Slovenian Supreme Court on the permissibility of including contractual penalties in employment contracts highlight that when assessing the permissibility of applying the concept of a contractual penalty, one must consider the subordinate and dependent position of the employee relative to the employer both when concluding the employment contract and during the employment relationship.