Aux termes d\u2019un arr\u00eat du 4 novembre 2020, la chambre sociale de la Cour de cassation invalide, sur le fondement de la protection des int\u00e9r\u00eats l\u00e9gitimes, une clause de non-concurrence consid\u00e9rant qu\u2019elle \u00e9tait d\u00e9pourvue de cause licite.<\/p>\n
En l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, un salari\u00e9 avait conclu avec son employeur une clause pr\u00e9voyant le versement d\u2019une indemnit\u00e9 \u00e9quivalente \u00e0 100% des 24 derniers mois de salaires moyens cumul\u00e9s, payable en une seule fois, sans facult\u00e9 pour l\u2019employeur de lever ladite clause, en contrepartie d\u2019un engagement de non-concurrence sur deux d\u00e9partements. <\/p>\n
Suite \u00e0 son licenciement \u00e9conomique, le salari\u00e9 avait introduit une demande de nullit\u00e9 du licenciement et de paiement de la contrepartie financi\u00e8re li\u00e9e \u00e0 sa clause de non-concurrence. <\/p>\n
Sur le moyen li\u00e9 \u00e0 la mise en \u0153uvre de la clause, la Cour confirme l\u2019arr\u00eat d\u2019appel lequel avait conclu \u00e0 l\u2019absence de cause licite de la clause de non concurrence en raison du caract\u00e8re disproportionn\u00e9 de la contrepartie financi\u00e8re pr\u00e9vue au regard de \u00ab l\u2019\u00e9tendue g\u00e9ographique de l\u2019obligation de non concurrence, se limitant \u00e0 deux d\u00e9partements, [\u2026] par la dur\u00e9e de celle-ci,[\u2026] par la nature des fonctions exerc\u00e9es, [du fait] que le contrat du salari\u00e9 avait \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9tabli \u00e0 une \u00e9poque o\u00f9 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 rencontrait d\u2019importantes difficult\u00e9s financi\u00e8res [et] [\u2026] \u00bb de l\u2019absence de facult\u00e9 pour l\u2019employeur de lever ladite clause.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Cour de cassation, Chambre sociale, 4 novembre 2020<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":284,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_angie_page":false,"page_builder":"","footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"annee":[21],"expertise":[30],"class_list":["post-1481","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-le-cabinet","annee-21","expertise-social"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1481","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1481"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1481\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1807,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1481\/revisions\/1807"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/284"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1481"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1481"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1481"},{"taxonomy":"annee","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/annee?post=1481"},{"taxonomy":"expertise","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/expertise?post=1481"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}