Non-Compete Clause in Eindhoven: When a Concurrentiebeding Is Void

Why this comes up in Eindhoven

Eindhoven is where non-compete clauses do the most damage, because the Brainport cluster concentrates a small number of large employers and a dense supply chain of specialists around them in one metropolitan area. A clause covering 'competing activities' means something very different for a semiconductor process engineer in Eindhoven than for a generalist in a diversified city economy - the pool of alternative employers within commuting distance may be a handful of firms, several of which are customers or suppliers of your current one. That concentration is also why judges take the geographic and sectoral breadth of these clauses seriously.

First question: was your contract fixed-term?

Article 7:653 BW allows a non-compete only in a contract for an indefinite period, agreed in writing with an employee who is 18 or over. A fixed-term contract can contain one only by way of exception, and only if a written motivation accompanying the clause shows it is necessary because of compelling business or service interests.

That motivation has to be there, in writing, alongside the clause. Not implied by context, not supplied afterwards in a letter from the employer's lawyer, and not satisfied by a generic sentence about protecting confidential information that appears in every contract the company issues. If your contract was fixed-term and there is no specific written motivation, the starting point is that the clause is unenforceable - and a judge may annul it wholly on that basis.

Even a valid clause can be cut down

Where the clause was properly agreed, a judge may still annul it wholly or partly if, weighed against the employer's interest in protection, you are unfairly disadvantaged by it. This is where breadth matters: duration, geographic scope, and how widely 'competing activity' is defined all feed into that balance. A clause covering an entire sector across the whole country for two years is far more vulnerable than a narrow one.

There is also a compensation mechanism. Where the clause significantly hinders you from earning a living, the judge may order the employer to pay for the period of the restriction - unless the termination resulted from your own seriously culpable conduct.

If the employer caused the ending, it loses the clause

An employer cannot invoke a non-compete where the ending or non-continuation of the contract is the result of its own seriously culpable conduct. This is worth checking in any case where you left because of how you were treated, or where a fixed-term contract was not renewed for reasons that reflect on the employer.

The 2026 reform: real, but not yet law

In June 2026 the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment sent a bill to modernise the non-compete clause to the Council of State for advice, with the intention of submitting it to parliament at the end of 2026. As proposed it would cap the duration at 12 months, require the employer to state the geographic scope, bring non-solicitation clauses under the same stricter regime, and require the employer to pay compensation when it invokes the clause.

None of that is in force, and a bill at Council of State stage can still change. It is relevant to how a clause might be negotiated now, and irrelevant to whether the one in your contract is currently enforceable - that is decided under article 7:653 BW as it stands.

What to do before you tell anyone

Pull the clause and the contract it sits in, and establish three things: whether the contract was fixed-term or indefinite, whether a written motivation accompanies the clause, and exactly what activity, area and period it covers. Then look at whether a relatiebeding - a non-solicitation clause - sits alongside it, because those are frequently the more practically restrictive of the two and are often overlooked.

It is usually better to establish where you stand before resigning or signing elsewhere, because your negotiating position with both employers depends on whether the clause holds.

What this page is based on

• Article 7:653 BW - the non-compete clause (concurrentiebeding)
• Wetsvoorstel modernisering concurrentiebeding - with the Council of State since June 2026, not law

Checked against wetten.overheid.nl and rechtspraak.nl in August 2026. Dutch employment law changes, and several reforms described here have passed parliament without yet being in force - where that is the case the page says so.

Common questions

Other employment situations

• UtrechtOn-call and zero-hours workTwelve months of on-call work triggers a duty to offer fixed hours - and cancelled shifts still have to be paid.
• AmstelveenSeconded from a foreign parent companyA foreign governing-law clause does not switch off Dutch dismissal protection. Rome I sets a floor beneath it.
• DelftDismissed during a probation periodProbation clauses are void, not shortened, when they exceed the limit. Check the contract length first.