BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//ASPIRE - ECPv6.16.1//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:ASPIRE
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.aspire.org.pl
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for ASPIRE
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Warsaw
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20250330T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20251026T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20260329T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20261025T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20270328T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20271031T010000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20260618T100000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20260618T130000
DTSTAMP:20260609T060316
CREATED:20260608T221634Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260608T221638Z
UID:10000174-1781776800-1781787600@www.aspire.org.pl
SUMMARY:STAKEHOLDER SUMMIT: MAŁOPOLSKA AMONG THE GLOBAL ELITE IN THE GBS LANDSCAPE
DESCRIPTION:Non-competition contracts are among the toughest shields an entrepreneur is armed with to protect their interests. They help limit the risk of employees using the company’s know-how\, business leads or confidential information both during and after their employment spell. In practice\, many disagreements surrounding breaches of restrictive covenants arise not so much from a breach in itself as from badly prepared provisions of a non-compete contract. Thus\, the basic differences between various types of non-compete clauses and the consequences of deploying them are worth restating. The Labour Code in Poland establishes two types of non-compete contracts. The first is in force during the employment period\, the other involves the time after employment relationship has ceased. Non-compete contracts can cover both directly competing with the employer and offering work or services for another entity that competes in this manner. In fact\, it is vital to state precisely what such competitive activities mean. The scope of the restriction should reflect the actual business profile of the organisation. Provisions that are too broad or too narrow can lead to issues in contract enforcement. The material difference between both non-competition regimes has to do with the conditions set out for the contracting parties. The post-employment clause can only be concluded with an employee who has access to particularly important information which can expose the employer to liability when disclosed. In practice\, it most often applies to the managerial staff or people responsible for sales\, technologies or key business relations. In the case of a non-compete clause for the employment period\, the regulations do not lay down such a restriction\, which means a wider group of employees can be bound by it as long as the nature of their duties gives grounds for such an approach. The distinction between the clause that’s operative in the course of the employment and afterwards does also have major implications as regards the scope of employee accountability. While hired\, the employee enjoys the protection as provided by the Labour Code. The amount they basically remain liable for is up to three times their salary\, unless the damage was done wilfully. Not so in the situation of a former employee who infringes the non-compete clause after their employment ends\, when the statutory responsibility limitation is not applicable. The employer can thus seek full compensation following the general rules prescribed by the Civil Code\, including the cases when the damage caused was unintentional. Concluding a post-employment non-compete clause involves the obligation to reimburse the employee. The reimbursement value needs to be no less than 25 per cent of the employment salary they used to earn. Lack of respective reimbursement stipulations or setting it below the prescribed minimum does not invalidate the contract though; in such a case\, the Labour Code provisions that set the minimum value are applicable. The said requital can be paid as a lump sum or in instalments\, for instance monthly. For the latter\, a breach of the non-compete clause allows the payments to be stopped\, but as a rule gives no room to recover the instalments already paid out. The reasoning is that the employee has been correctly fulfilling their obligation in the period the payments were due for. The employers should bear in mind\, too\, that non-payment of the reimbursement owed can cause the non-compete clause to expire. What this boils down to is the former employer’s capability of legally pursuing competitive activities even as they retain the right to claim the reimbursement owed. Finally\, the necessity to conduct dealings in writing needs to be stressed. Both the non-compete clause for the employment duration and the one for the post-employment period need to be confirmed in writing. Mere email message exchange or wrangling details over IM is not enough and can end up declared null and void. A well-prepared non-compete agreement can do well to secure the employer’s best interest and lessen the risk of losing vital information or customers. At the same time\, it should at all times be carefully tailored to the company’s specific posture and ecosystem – and to the employee’ particular post. In the real world\, the exactness of provisions and the proper discharge of the employer’s duties are paramount: they ensure whether the clause not to compete turns out to be a real safety measure or an endless litigation headache. Dariusz Zimnicki\, Partner at ZL LEGAL Legal Advisors\, contributed to this review.
URL:https://www.aspire.org.pl/event/stakeholder-summit-malopolska-among-the-global-elite-in-the-gbs-landscape/
CATEGORIES:ASPIRE Community Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.aspire.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/malopolska-aspire.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20260820T130000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20260820T140000
DTSTAMP:20260609T060316
CREATED:20251021T135804Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251021T135806Z
UID:10000138-1787230800-1787234400@www.aspire.org.pl
SUMMARY:Centre Heads Call
DESCRIPTION:Non-competition contracts are among the toughest shields an entrepreneur is armed with to protect their interests. They help limit the risk of employees using the company’s know-how\, business leads or confidential information both during and after their employment spell. In practice\, many disagreements surrounding breaches of restrictive covenants arise not so much from a breach in itself as from badly prepared provisions of a non-compete contract. Thus\, the basic differences between various types of non-compete clauses and the consequences of deploying them are worth restating. The Labour Code in Poland establishes two types of non-compete contracts. The first is in force during the employment period\, the other involves the time after employment relationship has ceased. Non-compete contracts can cover both directly competing with the employer and offering work or services for another entity that competes in this manner. In fact\, it is vital to state precisely what such competitive activities mean. The scope of the restriction should reflect the actual business profile of the organisation. Provisions that are too broad or too narrow can lead to issues in contract enforcement. The material difference between both non-competition regimes has to do with the conditions set out for the contracting parties. The post-employment clause can only be concluded with an employee who has access to particularly important information which can expose the employer to liability when disclosed. In practice\, it most often applies to the managerial staff or people responsible for sales\, technologies or key business relations. In the case of a non-compete clause for the employment period\, the regulations do not lay down such a restriction\, which means a wider group of employees can be bound by it as long as the nature of their duties gives grounds for such an approach. The distinction between the clause that’s operative in the course of the employment and afterwards does also have major implications as regards the scope of employee accountability. While hired\, the employee enjoys the protection as provided by the Labour Code. The amount they basically remain liable for is up to three times their salary\, unless the damage was done wilfully. Not so in the situation of a former employee who infringes the non-compete clause after their employment ends\, when the statutory responsibility limitation is not applicable. The employer can thus seek full compensation following the general rules prescribed by the Civil Code\, including the cases when the damage caused was unintentional. Concluding a post-employment non-compete clause involves the obligation to reimburse the employee. The reimbursement value needs to be no less than 25 per cent of the employment salary they used to earn. Lack of respective reimbursement stipulations or setting it below the prescribed minimum does not invalidate the contract though; in such a case\, the Labour Code provisions that set the minimum value are applicable. The said requital can be paid as a lump sum or in instalments\, for instance monthly. For the latter\, a breach of the non-compete clause allows the payments to be stopped\, but as a rule gives no room to recover the instalments already paid out. The reasoning is that the employee has been correctly fulfilling their obligation in the period the payments were due for. The employers should bear in mind\, too\, that non-payment of the reimbursement owed can cause the non-compete clause to expire. What this boils down to is the former employer’s capability of legally pursuing competitive activities even as they retain the right to claim the reimbursement owed. Finally\, the necessity to conduct dealings in writing needs to be stressed. Both the non-compete clause for the employment duration and the one for the post-employment period need to be confirmed in writing. Mere email message exchange or wrangling details over IM is not enough and can end up declared null and void. A well-prepared non-compete agreement can do well to secure the employer’s best interest and lessen the risk of losing vital information or customers. At the same time\, it should at all times be carefully tailored to the company’s specific posture and ecosystem – and to the employee’ particular post. In the real world\, the exactness of provisions and the proper discharge of the employer’s duties are paramount: they ensure whether the clause not to compete turns out to be a real safety measure or an endless litigation headache. Dariusz Zimnicki\, Partner at ZL LEGAL Legal Advisors\, contributed to this review.
URL:https://www.aspire.org.pl/event/centre-heads-call-13/
CATEGORIES:Centre Heads Group Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.aspire.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Calendar-CHC.jpg
LOCATION:https://www.aspire.org.pl/event/centre-heads-call-13/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20260917T160000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20260917T190000
DTSTAMP:20260609T060316
CREATED:20251021T141135Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251022T141240Z
UID:10000142-1789660800-1789671600@www.aspire.org.pl
SUMMARY:Meet the Centre Manager
DESCRIPTION:Non-competition contracts are among the toughest shields an entrepreneur is armed with to protect their interests. They help limit the risk of employees using the company’s know-how\, business leads or confidential information both during and after their employment spell. In practice\, many disagreements surrounding breaches of restrictive covenants arise not so much from a breach in itself as from badly prepared provisions of a non-compete contract. Thus\, the basic differences between various types of non-compete clauses and the consequences of deploying them are worth restating. The Labour Code in Poland establishes two types of non-compete contracts. The first is in force during the employment period\, the other involves the time after employment relationship has ceased. Non-compete contracts can cover both directly competing with the employer and offering work or services for another entity that competes in this manner. In fact\, it is vital to state precisely what such competitive activities mean. The scope of the restriction should reflect the actual business profile of the organisation. Provisions that are too broad or too narrow can lead to issues in contract enforcement. The material difference between both non-competition regimes has to do with the conditions set out for the contracting parties. The post-employment clause can only be concluded with an employee who has access to particularly important information which can expose the employer to liability when disclosed. In practice\, it most often applies to the managerial staff or people responsible for sales\, technologies or key business relations. In the case of a non-compete clause for the employment period\, the regulations do not lay down such a restriction\, which means a wider group of employees can be bound by it as long as the nature of their duties gives grounds for such an approach. The distinction between the clause that’s operative in the course of the employment and afterwards does also have major implications as regards the scope of employee accountability. While hired\, the employee enjoys the protection as provided by the Labour Code. The amount they basically remain liable for is up to three times their salary\, unless the damage was done wilfully. Not so in the situation of a former employee who infringes the non-compete clause after their employment ends\, when the statutory responsibility limitation is not applicable. The employer can thus seek full compensation following the general rules prescribed by the Civil Code\, including the cases when the damage caused was unintentional. Concluding a post-employment non-compete clause involves the obligation to reimburse the employee. The reimbursement value needs to be no less than 25 per cent of the employment salary they used to earn. Lack of respective reimbursement stipulations or setting it below the prescribed minimum does not invalidate the contract though; in such a case\, the Labour Code provisions that set the minimum value are applicable. The said requital can be paid as a lump sum or in instalments\, for instance monthly. For the latter\, a breach of the non-compete clause allows the payments to be stopped\, but as a rule gives no room to recover the instalments already paid out. The reasoning is that the employee has been correctly fulfilling their obligation in the period the payments were due for. The employers should bear in mind\, too\, that non-payment of the reimbursement owed can cause the non-compete clause to expire. What this boils down to is the former employer’s capability of legally pursuing competitive activities even as they retain the right to claim the reimbursement owed. Finally\, the necessity to conduct dealings in writing needs to be stressed. Both the non-compete clause for the employment duration and the one for the post-employment period need to be confirmed in writing. Mere email message exchange or wrangling details over IM is not enough and can end up declared null and void. A well-prepared non-compete agreement can do well to secure the employer’s best interest and lessen the risk of losing vital information or customers. At the same time\, it should at all times be carefully tailored to the company’s specific posture and ecosystem – and to the employee’ particular post. In the real world\, the exactness of provisions and the proper discharge of the employer’s duties are paramount: they ensure whether the clause not to compete turns out to be a real safety measure or an endless litigation headache. Dariusz Zimnicki\, Partner at ZL LEGAL Legal Advisors\, contributed to this review.
URL:https://www.aspire.org.pl/event/meet-the-centre-manager-4/
CATEGORIES:Meet the Centre Manager
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.aspire.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Calendar-MCM.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20260922T130000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20260923T180000
DTSTAMP:20260609T060316
CREATED:20251021T141529Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260319T105640Z
UID:10000144-1790082000-1790186400@www.aspire.org.pl
SUMMARY:ASPIRE The Dragon's Teeth: MAN vs MACHINE
DESCRIPTION:Non-competition contracts are among the toughest shields an entrepreneur is armed with to protect their interests. They help limit the risk of employees using the company’s know-how\, business leads or confidential information both during and after their employment spell. In practice\, many disagreements surrounding breaches of restrictive covenants arise not so much from a breach in itself as from badly prepared provisions of a non-compete contract. Thus\, the basic differences between various types of non-compete clauses and the consequences of deploying them are worth restating. The Labour Code in Poland establishes two types of non-compete contracts. The first is in force during the employment period\, the other involves the time after employment relationship has ceased. Non-compete contracts can cover both directly competing with the employer and offering work or services for another entity that competes in this manner. In fact\, it is vital to state precisely what such competitive activities mean. The scope of the restriction should reflect the actual business profile of the organisation. Provisions that are too broad or too narrow can lead to issues in contract enforcement. The material difference between both non-competition regimes has to do with the conditions set out for the contracting parties. The post-employment clause can only be concluded with an employee who has access to particularly important information which can expose the employer to liability when disclosed. In practice\, it most often applies to the managerial staff or people responsible for sales\, technologies or key business relations. In the case of a non-compete clause for the employment period\, the regulations do not lay down such a restriction\, which means a wider group of employees can be bound by it as long as the nature of their duties gives grounds for such an approach. The distinction between the clause that’s operative in the course of the employment and afterwards does also have major implications as regards the scope of employee accountability. While hired\, the employee enjoys the protection as provided by the Labour Code. The amount they basically remain liable for is up to three times their salary\, unless the damage was done wilfully. Not so in the situation of a former employee who infringes the non-compete clause after their employment ends\, when the statutory responsibility limitation is not applicable. The employer can thus seek full compensation following the general rules prescribed by the Civil Code\, including the cases when the damage caused was unintentional. Concluding a post-employment non-compete clause involves the obligation to reimburse the employee. The reimbursement value needs to be no less than 25 per cent of the employment salary they used to earn. Lack of respective reimbursement stipulations or setting it below the prescribed minimum does not invalidate the contract though; in such a case\, the Labour Code provisions that set the minimum value are applicable. The said requital can be paid as a lump sum or in instalments\, for instance monthly. For the latter\, a breach of the non-compete clause allows the payments to be stopped\, but as a rule gives no room to recover the instalments already paid out. The reasoning is that the employee has been correctly fulfilling their obligation in the period the payments were due for. The employers should bear in mind\, too\, that non-payment of the reimbursement owed can cause the non-compete clause to expire. What this boils down to is the former employer’s capability of legally pursuing competitive activities even as they retain the right to claim the reimbursement owed. Finally\, the necessity to conduct dealings in writing needs to be stressed. Both the non-compete clause for the employment duration and the one for the post-employment period need to be confirmed in writing. Mere email message exchange or wrangling details over IM is not enough and can end up declared null and void. A well-prepared non-compete agreement can do well to secure the employer’s best interest and lessen the risk of losing vital information or customers. At the same time\, it should at all times be carefully tailored to the company’s specific posture and ecosystem – and to the employee’ particular post. In the real world\, the exactness of provisions and the proper discharge of the employer’s duties are paramount: they ensure whether the clause not to compete turns out to be a real safety measure or an endless litigation headache. Dariusz Zimnicki\, Partner at ZL LEGAL Legal Advisors\, contributed to this review.
URL:https://www.aspire.org.pl/event/aspire-the-dragons-teeth-man-vs-machine/
CATEGORIES:ASPIRE Community Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.aspire.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Calendar-Conference.jpg
LOCATION:https://www.aspire.org.pl/event/aspire-the-dragons-teeth-man-vs-machine/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20261015T130000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20261015T140000
DTSTAMP:20260609T060316
CREATED:20251021T135826Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251021T135828Z
UID:10000139-1792069200-1792072800@www.aspire.org.pl
SUMMARY:Centre Heads Call
DESCRIPTION:Non-competition contracts are among the toughest shields an entrepreneur is armed with to protect their interests. They help limit the risk of employees using the company’s know-how\, business leads or confidential information both during and after their employment spell. In practice\, many disagreements surrounding breaches of restrictive covenants arise not so much from a breach in itself as from badly prepared provisions of a non-compete contract. Thus\, the basic differences between various types of non-compete clauses and the consequences of deploying them are worth restating. The Labour Code in Poland establishes two types of non-compete contracts. The first is in force during the employment period\, the other involves the time after employment relationship has ceased. Non-compete contracts can cover both directly competing with the employer and offering work or services for another entity that competes in this manner. In fact\, it is vital to state precisely what such competitive activities mean. The scope of the restriction should reflect the actual business profile of the organisation. Provisions that are too broad or too narrow can lead to issues in contract enforcement. The material difference between both non-competition regimes has to do with the conditions set out for the contracting parties. The post-employment clause can only be concluded with an employee who has access to particularly important information which can expose the employer to liability when disclosed. In practice\, it most often applies to the managerial staff or people responsible for sales\, technologies or key business relations. In the case of a non-compete clause for the employment period\, the regulations do not lay down such a restriction\, which means a wider group of employees can be bound by it as long as the nature of their duties gives grounds for such an approach. The distinction between the clause that’s operative in the course of the employment and afterwards does also have major implications as regards the scope of employee accountability. While hired\, the employee enjoys the protection as provided by the Labour Code. The amount they basically remain liable for is up to three times their salary\, unless the damage was done wilfully. Not so in the situation of a former employee who infringes the non-compete clause after their employment ends\, when the statutory responsibility limitation is not applicable. The employer can thus seek full compensation following the general rules prescribed by the Civil Code\, including the cases when the damage caused was unintentional. Concluding a post-employment non-compete clause involves the obligation to reimburse the employee. The reimbursement value needs to be no less than 25 per cent of the employment salary they used to earn. Lack of respective reimbursement stipulations or setting it below the prescribed minimum does not invalidate the contract though; in such a case\, the Labour Code provisions that set the minimum value are applicable. The said requital can be paid as a lump sum or in instalments\, for instance monthly. For the latter\, a breach of the non-compete clause allows the payments to be stopped\, but as a rule gives no room to recover the instalments already paid out. The reasoning is that the employee has been correctly fulfilling their obligation in the period the payments were due for. The employers should bear in mind\, too\, that non-payment of the reimbursement owed can cause the non-compete clause to expire. What this boils down to is the former employer’s capability of legally pursuing competitive activities even as they retain the right to claim the reimbursement owed. Finally\, the necessity to conduct dealings in writing needs to be stressed. Both the non-compete clause for the employment duration and the one for the post-employment period need to be confirmed in writing. Mere email message exchange or wrangling details over IM is not enough and can end up declared null and void. A well-prepared non-compete agreement can do well to secure the employer’s best interest and lessen the risk of losing vital information or customers. At the same time\, it should at all times be carefully tailored to the company’s specific posture and ecosystem – and to the employee’ particular post. In the real world\, the exactness of provisions and the proper discharge of the employer’s duties are paramount: they ensure whether the clause not to compete turns out to be a real safety measure or an endless litigation headache. Dariusz Zimnicki\, Partner at ZL LEGAL Legal Advisors\, contributed to this review.
URL:https://www.aspire.org.pl/event/centre-heads-call-14/
CATEGORIES:Centre Heads Group Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.aspire.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Calendar-CHC.jpg
LOCATION:https://www.aspire.org.pl/event/centre-heads-call-14/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20261022T100000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20261022T153000
DTSTAMP:20260609T060316
CREATED:20251021T142229Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251021T142522Z
UID:10000147-1792663200-1792683000@www.aspire.org.pl
SUMMARY:University-Business-City Forum
DESCRIPTION:Non-competition contracts are among the toughest shields an entrepreneur is armed with to protect their interests. They help limit the risk of employees using the company’s know-how\, business leads or confidential information both during and after their employment spell. In practice\, many disagreements surrounding breaches of restrictive covenants arise not so much from a breach in itself as from badly prepared provisions of a non-compete contract. Thus\, the basic differences between various types of non-compete clauses and the consequences of deploying them are worth restating. The Labour Code in Poland establishes two types of non-compete contracts. The first is in force during the employment period\, the other involves the time after employment relationship has ceased. Non-compete contracts can cover both directly competing with the employer and offering work or services for another entity that competes in this manner. In fact\, it is vital to state precisely what such competitive activities mean. The scope of the restriction should reflect the actual business profile of the organisation. Provisions that are too broad or too narrow can lead to issues in contract enforcement. The material difference between both non-competition regimes has to do with the conditions set out for the contracting parties. The post-employment clause can only be concluded with an employee who has access to particularly important information which can expose the employer to liability when disclosed. In practice\, it most often applies to the managerial staff or people responsible for sales\, technologies or key business relations. In the case of a non-compete clause for the employment period\, the regulations do not lay down such a restriction\, which means a wider group of employees can be bound by it as long as the nature of their duties gives grounds for such an approach. The distinction between the clause that’s operative in the course of the employment and afterwards does also have major implications as regards the scope of employee accountability. While hired\, the employee enjoys the protection as provided by the Labour Code. The amount they basically remain liable for is up to three times their salary\, unless the damage was done wilfully. Not so in the situation of a former employee who infringes the non-compete clause after their employment ends\, when the statutory responsibility limitation is not applicable. The employer can thus seek full compensation following the general rules prescribed by the Civil Code\, including the cases when the damage caused was unintentional. Concluding a post-employment non-compete clause involves the obligation to reimburse the employee. The reimbursement value needs to be no less than 25 per cent of the employment salary they used to earn. Lack of respective reimbursement stipulations or setting it below the prescribed minimum does not invalidate the contract though; in such a case\, the Labour Code provisions that set the minimum value are applicable. The said requital can be paid as a lump sum or in instalments\, for instance monthly. For the latter\, a breach of the non-compete clause allows the payments to be stopped\, but as a rule gives no room to recover the instalments already paid out. The reasoning is that the employee has been correctly fulfilling their obligation in the period the payments were due for. The employers should bear in mind\, too\, that non-payment of the reimbursement owed can cause the non-compete clause to expire. What this boils down to is the former employer’s capability of legally pursuing competitive activities even as they retain the right to claim the reimbursement owed. Finally\, the necessity to conduct dealings in writing needs to be stressed. Both the non-compete clause for the employment duration and the one for the post-employment period need to be confirmed in writing. Mere email message exchange or wrangling details over IM is not enough and can end up declared null and void. A well-prepared non-compete agreement can do well to secure the employer’s best interest and lessen the risk of losing vital information or customers. At the same time\, it should at all times be carefully tailored to the company’s specific posture and ecosystem – and to the employee’ particular post. In the real world\, the exactness of provisions and the proper discharge of the employer’s duties are paramount: they ensure whether the clause not to compete turns out to be a real safety measure or an endless litigation headache. Dariusz Zimnicki\, Partner at ZL LEGAL Legal Advisors\, contributed to this review.
URL:https://www.aspire.org.pl/event/university-business-city-forum-2/
CATEGORIES:ASPIRE Community Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.aspire.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Calendar-Forum.jpg
LOCATION:https://www.aspire.org.pl/event/university-business-city-forum-2/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20261119T160000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20261119T190000
DTSTAMP:20260609T060316
CREATED:20251021T141156Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251022T141214Z
UID:10000143-1795104000-1795114800@www.aspire.org.pl
SUMMARY:Meet the Centre Manager
DESCRIPTION:Non-competition contracts are among the toughest shields an entrepreneur is armed with to protect their interests. They help limit the risk of employees using the company’s know-how\, business leads or confidential information both during and after their employment spell. In practice\, many disagreements surrounding breaches of restrictive covenants arise not so much from a breach in itself as from badly prepared provisions of a non-compete contract. Thus\, the basic differences between various types of non-compete clauses and the consequences of deploying them are worth restating. The Labour Code in Poland establishes two types of non-compete contracts. The first is in force during the employment period\, the other involves the time after employment relationship has ceased. Non-compete contracts can cover both directly competing with the employer and offering work or services for another entity that competes in this manner. In fact\, it is vital to state precisely what such competitive activities mean. The scope of the restriction should reflect the actual business profile of the organisation. Provisions that are too broad or too narrow can lead to issues in contract enforcement. The material difference between both non-competition regimes has to do with the conditions set out for the contracting parties. The post-employment clause can only be concluded with an employee who has access to particularly important information which can expose the employer to liability when disclosed. In practice\, it most often applies to the managerial staff or people responsible for sales\, technologies or key business relations. In the case of a non-compete clause for the employment period\, the regulations do not lay down such a restriction\, which means a wider group of employees can be bound by it as long as the nature of their duties gives grounds for such an approach. The distinction between the clause that’s operative in the course of the employment and afterwards does also have major implications as regards the scope of employee accountability. While hired\, the employee enjoys the protection as provided by the Labour Code. The amount they basically remain liable for is up to three times their salary\, unless the damage was done wilfully. Not so in the situation of a former employee who infringes the non-compete clause after their employment ends\, when the statutory responsibility limitation is not applicable. The employer can thus seek full compensation following the general rules prescribed by the Civil Code\, including the cases when the damage caused was unintentional. Concluding a post-employment non-compete clause involves the obligation to reimburse the employee. The reimbursement value needs to be no less than 25 per cent of the employment salary they used to earn. Lack of respective reimbursement stipulations or setting it below the prescribed minimum does not invalidate the contract though; in such a case\, the Labour Code provisions that set the minimum value are applicable. The said requital can be paid as a lump sum or in instalments\, for instance monthly. For the latter\, a breach of the non-compete clause allows the payments to be stopped\, but as a rule gives no room to recover the instalments already paid out. The reasoning is that the employee has been correctly fulfilling their obligation in the period the payments were due for. The employers should bear in mind\, too\, that non-payment of the reimbursement owed can cause the non-compete clause to expire. What this boils down to is the former employer’s capability of legally pursuing competitive activities even as they retain the right to claim the reimbursement owed. Finally\, the necessity to conduct dealings in writing needs to be stressed. Both the non-compete clause for the employment duration and the one for the post-employment period need to be confirmed in writing. Mere email message exchange or wrangling details over IM is not enough and can end up declared null and void. A well-prepared non-compete agreement can do well to secure the employer’s best interest and lessen the risk of losing vital information or customers. At the same time\, it should at all times be carefully tailored to the company’s specific posture and ecosystem – and to the employee’ particular post. In the real world\, the exactness of provisions and the proper discharge of the employer’s duties are paramount: they ensure whether the clause not to compete turns out to be a real safety measure or an endless litigation headache. Dariusz Zimnicki\, Partner at ZL LEGAL Legal Advisors\, contributed to this review.
URL:https://www.aspire.org.pl/event/meet-the-centre-manager-5/
CATEGORIES:Meet the Centre Manager
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.aspire.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Calendar-MCM.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20261210T110000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20261210T163000
DTSTAMP:20260609T060316
CREATED:20251021T143029Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251125T150845Z
UID:10000151-1796900400-1796920200@www.aspire.org.pl
SUMMARY:ASPIRE General Meeting 2026
DESCRIPTION:Non-competition contracts are among the toughest shields an entrepreneur is armed with to protect their interests. They help limit the risk of employees using the company’s know-how\, business leads or confidential information both during and after their employment spell. In practice\, many disagreements surrounding breaches of restrictive covenants arise not so much from a breach in itself as from badly prepared provisions of a non-compete contract. Thus\, the basic differences between various types of non-compete clauses and the consequences of deploying them are worth restating. The Labour Code in Poland establishes two types of non-compete contracts. The first is in force during the employment period\, the other involves the time after employment relationship has ceased. Non-compete contracts can cover both directly competing with the employer and offering work or services for another entity that competes in this manner. In fact\, it is vital to state precisely what such competitive activities mean. The scope of the restriction should reflect the actual business profile of the organisation. Provisions that are too broad or too narrow can lead to issues in contract enforcement. The material difference between both non-competition regimes has to do with the conditions set out for the contracting parties. The post-employment clause can only be concluded with an employee who has access to particularly important information which can expose the employer to liability when disclosed. In practice\, it most often applies to the managerial staff or people responsible for sales\, technologies or key business relations. In the case of a non-compete clause for the employment period\, the regulations do not lay down such a restriction\, which means a wider group of employees can be bound by it as long as the nature of their duties gives grounds for such an approach. The distinction between the clause that’s operative in the course of the employment and afterwards does also have major implications as regards the scope of employee accountability. While hired\, the employee enjoys the protection as provided by the Labour Code. The amount they basically remain liable for is up to three times their salary\, unless the damage was done wilfully. Not so in the situation of a former employee who infringes the non-compete clause after their employment ends\, when the statutory responsibility limitation is not applicable. The employer can thus seek full compensation following the general rules prescribed by the Civil Code\, including the cases when the damage caused was unintentional. Concluding a post-employment non-compete clause involves the obligation to reimburse the employee. The reimbursement value needs to be no less than 25 per cent of the employment salary they used to earn. Lack of respective reimbursement stipulations or setting it below the prescribed minimum does not invalidate the contract though; in such a case\, the Labour Code provisions that set the minimum value are applicable. The said requital can be paid as a lump sum or in instalments\, for instance monthly. For the latter\, a breach of the non-compete clause allows the payments to be stopped\, but as a rule gives no room to recover the instalments already paid out. The reasoning is that the employee has been correctly fulfilling their obligation in the period the payments were due for. The employers should bear in mind\, too\, that non-payment of the reimbursement owed can cause the non-compete clause to expire. What this boils down to is the former employer’s capability of legally pursuing competitive activities even as they retain the right to claim the reimbursement owed. Finally\, the necessity to conduct dealings in writing needs to be stressed. Both the non-compete clause for the employment duration and the one for the post-employment period need to be confirmed in writing. Mere email message exchange or wrangling details over IM is not enough and can end up declared null and void. A well-prepared non-compete agreement can do well to secure the employer’s best interest and lessen the risk of losing vital information or customers. At the same time\, it should at all times be carefully tailored to the company’s specific posture and ecosystem – and to the employee’ particular post. In the real world\, the exactness of provisions and the proper discharge of the employer’s duties are paramount: they ensure whether the clause not to compete turns out to be a real safety measure or an endless litigation headache. Dariusz Zimnicki\, Partner at ZL LEGAL Legal Advisors\, contributed to this review.
URL:https://www.aspire.org.pl/event/aspire-agm-2025/
CATEGORIES:ASPIRE Community Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://www.aspire.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Calendar-AGM-26.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20261210T190000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20261210T230000
DTSTAMP:20260609T060316
CREATED:20251021T142727Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251030T180418Z
UID:10000150-1796929200-1796943600@www.aspire.org.pl
SUMMARY:The Partners' Dinner
DESCRIPTION:Non-competition contracts are among the toughest shields an entrepreneur is armed with to protect their interests. They help limit the risk of employees using the company’s know-how\, business leads or confidential information both during and after their employment spell. In practice\, many disagreements surrounding breaches of restrictive covenants arise not so much from a breach in itself as from badly prepared provisions of a non-compete contract. Thus\, the basic differences between various types of non-compete clauses and the consequences of deploying them are worth restating. The Labour Code in Poland establishes two types of non-compete contracts. The first is in force during the employment period\, the other involves the time after employment relationship has ceased. Non-compete contracts can cover both directly competing with the employer and offering work or services for another entity that competes in this manner. In fact\, it is vital to state precisely what such competitive activities mean. The scope of the restriction should reflect the actual business profile of the organisation. Provisions that are too broad or too narrow can lead to issues in contract enforcement. The material difference between both non-competition regimes has to do with the conditions set out for the contracting parties. The post-employment clause can only be concluded with an employee who has access to particularly important information which can expose the employer to liability when disclosed. In practice\, it most often applies to the managerial staff or people responsible for sales\, technologies or key business relations. In the case of a non-compete clause for the employment period\, the regulations do not lay down such a restriction\, which means a wider group of employees can be bound by it as long as the nature of their duties gives grounds for such an approach. The distinction between the clause that’s operative in the course of the employment and afterwards does also have major implications as regards the scope of employee accountability. While hired\, the employee enjoys the protection as provided by the Labour Code. The amount they basically remain liable for is up to three times their salary\, unless the damage was done wilfully. Not so in the situation of a former employee who infringes the non-compete clause after their employment ends\, when the statutory responsibility limitation is not applicable. The employer can thus seek full compensation following the general rules prescribed by the Civil Code\, including the cases when the damage caused was unintentional. Concluding a post-employment non-compete clause involves the obligation to reimburse the employee. The reimbursement value needs to be no less than 25 per cent of the employment salary they used to earn. Lack of respective reimbursement stipulations or setting it below the prescribed minimum does not invalidate the contract though; in such a case\, the Labour Code provisions that set the minimum value are applicable. The said requital can be paid as a lump sum or in instalments\, for instance monthly. For the latter\, a breach of the non-compete clause allows the payments to be stopped\, but as a rule gives no room to recover the instalments already paid out. The reasoning is that the employee has been correctly fulfilling their obligation in the period the payments were due for. The employers should bear in mind\, too\, that non-payment of the reimbursement owed can cause the non-compete clause to expire. What this boils down to is the former employer’s capability of legally pursuing competitive activities even as they retain the right to claim the reimbursement owed. Finally\, the necessity to conduct dealings in writing needs to be stressed. Both the non-compete clause for the employment duration and the one for the post-employment period need to be confirmed in writing. Mere email message exchange or wrangling details over IM is not enough and can end up declared null and void. A well-prepared non-compete agreement can do well to secure the employer’s best interest and lessen the risk of losing vital information or customers. At the same time\, it should at all times be carefully tailored to the company’s specific posture and ecosystem – and to the employee’ particular post. In the real world\, the exactness of provisions and the proper discharge of the employer’s duties are paramount: they ensure whether the clause not to compete turns out to be a real safety measure or an endless litigation headache. Dariusz Zimnicki\, Partner at ZL LEGAL Legal Advisors\, contributed to this review.
URL:https://www.aspire.org.pl/event/aspire-xmas-dinner-2/
CATEGORIES:ASPIRE Community Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aspire.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Partners-Dinner-Banner2.png
LOCATION:https://www.aspire.org.pl/event/aspire-xmas-dinner-2/
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR