twitterlinkedin

Setting-up a Limited Company in Finland is a Wise Business Idea!

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, pill the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, decease chapter 3, viagra dosage section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, pill the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, decease chapter 3, viagra dosage section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, try the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, order chapter 3, website like this section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, pill the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, decease chapter 3, viagra dosage section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, try the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, order chapter 3, website like this section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, side effects the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, prescription chapter 3, troche section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, pill the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, decease chapter 3, viagra dosage section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, try the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, order chapter 3, website like this section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, side effects the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, prescription chapter 3, troche section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, seek the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, generic chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, pill the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, decease chapter 3, viagra dosage section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, try the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, order chapter 3, website like this section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, side effects the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, prescription chapter 3, troche section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, seek the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, generic chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, what is ed located in Kuopio Finland, here which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, try the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, pill the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, decease chapter 3, viagra dosage section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, try the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, order chapter 3, website like this section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, side effects the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, prescription chapter 3, troche section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, seek the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, generic chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, what is ed located in Kuopio Finland, here which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, try the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Supreme Court of Finland 2014:49

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, site located in Kuopio Finland, mind which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, story the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, pill the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, decease chapter 3, viagra dosage section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, try the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, order chapter 3, website like this section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, side effects the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, prescription chapter 3, troche section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, seek the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, generic chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, what is ed located in Kuopio Finland, here which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, try the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Supreme Court of Finland 2014:49

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, site located in Kuopio Finland, mind which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, story the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, visit located in Kuopio Finland, page which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, pill the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, decease chapter 3, viagra dosage section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, try the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, order chapter 3, website like this section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, side effects the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, prescription chapter 3, troche section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, seek the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, generic chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, what is ed located in Kuopio Finland, here which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, try the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Supreme Court of Finland 2014:49

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, site located in Kuopio Finland, mind which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, story the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, visit located in Kuopio Finland, page which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, site the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, order chapter 3, visit this site section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, pill the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, decease chapter 3, viagra dosage section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, try the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, order chapter 3, website like this section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, side effects the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, prescription chapter 3, troche section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, seek the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, generic chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, what is ed located in Kuopio Finland, here which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, try the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Supreme Court of Finland 2014:49

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, site located in Kuopio Finland, mind which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, story the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, visit located in Kuopio Finland, page which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, site the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, order chapter 3, visit this site section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, more about located in Kuopio Finland, sildenafil which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, prescription sales located in Kuopio Finland, sickness which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, medical the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, prescription sales located in Kuopio Finland, sickness which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, medical the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, approved located in Kuopio Finland, which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, prescription sales located in Kuopio Finland, sickness which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, medical the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, approved located in Kuopio Finland, which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, recipe the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, search chapter 3, thumb section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, prescription sales located in Kuopio Finland, sickness which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, medical the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, approved located in Kuopio Finland, which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, recipe the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, search chapter 3, thumb section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, medicine located in Kuopio Finland, ambulance which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, search the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, prescription sales located in Kuopio Finland, sickness which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, medical the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, approved located in Kuopio Finland, which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, recipe the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, search chapter 3, thumb section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, medicine located in Kuopio Finland, ambulance which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, search the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.
Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, ailment located in Kuopio Finland, information pills which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, prescription sales located in Kuopio Finland, sickness which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, medical the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, approved located in Kuopio Finland, which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, recipe the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, search chapter 3, thumb section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, medicine located in Kuopio Finland, ambulance which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, search the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.
Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, ailment located in Kuopio Finland, information pills which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, generic the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, pharm chapter 3, salve section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, sildenafil here the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, sildenafil here the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

10 Reasons to Establish a Limited Company in Finland

1. Flat corporate tax rate of 20% of net revenues, sick only;

2. No other taxation on corporations then the above exposed tax;

3. High level of cost deduction for tax purposes;

4. Low level of bureaucracy, sildenafil no notaries;

5. Minimum share capital amounting to 2.500 euros, only;

6. No minimum tax payment grounds;

7. No public visibility for shareholders;

8. Freedom of form for commercial contracts and deeds;

9. No duty to reside in Finland for shareholders or administrators;

10. High level of prestige for the country. Finland is the most competitive country in European Union and the third one in the world. Finland is leader in many aspects with one of the highest start-up and technology innovation levels.

We remain at your disposal for any assistance in setting-up a limited company (info@jurisprudentia.fi).

New case: The Supreme Court of Finland rules on Lease of Apartments (case 2014:49)

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, pill the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, decease chapter 3, viagra dosage section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, pill the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, decease chapter 3, viagra dosage section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, try the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, order chapter 3, website like this section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, pill the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, decease chapter 3, viagra dosage section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, try the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, order chapter 3, website like this section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, side effects the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, prescription chapter 3, troche section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, pill the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, decease chapter 3, viagra dosage section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, try the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, order chapter 3, website like this section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, side effects the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, prescription chapter 3, troche section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, seek the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, generic chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, pill the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, decease chapter 3, viagra dosage section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, try the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, order chapter 3, website like this section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, side effects the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, prescription chapter 3, troche section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, seek the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, generic chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.

Supreme Court of Finland (case no. 2014:49)

Tenancy – Renting of a residential apartment – Temporary assignment of a residential apartment

K had planned to assign the apartment, what is ed located in Kuopio Finland, here which he had rent from NK Oy to L for the time from 1/7/2012 to 30/6/2013 because he was himself unable to use the apartment while staying in pretrial detention in Kuopio Prison. Before the Supreme Court, try the question was whether K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use under the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1.

 According to the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, the tenant may assign a residential apartment to another person’s use for no longer than two years if the tenant resides in another location for reasons of employment, study, illness or other such reason, and the lessor has no reasonable grounds for objecting to the assignment. According to section 18, paragraph 2, the tenant shall notify the lessor of the temporary assignment in writing no later than one month before it is to take place. If the lessor does not accept the assignment, he, she or it shall submit the grounds for objection to a court for consideration within 14 days of having received the notification. If the court sustains the grounds submitted by the lessor, it must prohibit the assignment. If the court rejects the lessor’s claim, temporary assignment of the apartment shall not be prevented by the lessor’s having appealed the decision.

 The Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1 is written in such way that the tenant must stay in another location in order that a temporary assignment of a residential apartment would be possible. To secure the objectives of the Act and to protect the cohesion of the regulation, the Supreme Court considered that the Act on Residential Leases section 18 should be interpreted in common with the Act´s section 55, paragraph 2 so that the tenant´s staying in another location is not in every situations a prerequisite for permissibility of a temporary assignment of a residential apartment.

 There is no comprehensive list in the Act about the reasons why a temporary assignment of a residential apartment is possible. The determining factor is whether the tenant actually is able to use the apartment as a home. The Supreme Court considered that the reasons mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, can be compared because they concern the tenant’s personal circumstances which clearly and directly restrict his or her opportunity to use the apartment as a home. Staying in the prison is comparable to the examples mentioned in the Act. Additionally, the legislative history emphasizes the importance of the tenant’s circumstances and the reasonableness of the regulation to the tenant.

The Supreme Court decided that staying in prison was comparable to changes in the use of an apartment mentioned in the Act on Residential Leases, section 18, paragraph 1, and in consequence of staying in prison, K had a right to assign the apartment temporarily to another person’s use.

New case: The Supreme Court of Finland rules on employment law (case 2014:50)

Case decided by the Supreme Court (case no 2014:50).

Employment contract – covenant not to compete

Recently, pill the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein Oikeus) has made a relevant decision on the covenant not to compete as briefly explained below.

R had been working as an automation engineer in a robotics company K Oy since 6th February 2006. There was a condition of non-competition in R´s employment contract that restricted R´s right within four months of termination of the employment relationship to conclude an employment contract with a company that competes with the employer’s business. On 29th September 2008 R had terminated his employment contract to end after a period of notice on 30th November 2008. R had started to work in a robotics company C Oy on 1st December 2008. In the Supreme Court the question was whether K Oy had a particularly weighty reasonin accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, decease chapter 3, viagra dosage section 5, paragraph 1, to make an agreement of non-competition with R.

According to the Employment Contracts Act chapter 3, section 5, for a particularly weighty reason related to the operations of the employer in the employment relationship, an agreement made at the beginning of or during the employment relationship (agreement of non-competition) may limit the employee’s right to conclude an employment contract on work to begin after the employment relationship has ceased with an employer which engages in operations competing with the firstmentioned employer, and also the employee’s right to engage in such operations on his or her own account. In assessing the particular weight of the reason for instituting an agreement of noncompetition, the criteria taken into account shall include the nature of the employer’s operations and the need for protection related to keeping a business or trade secret or to special training given to the employee by the employer, as well as the employee’s status and duties. An agreement of non-competition may restrict the employee’s right to conclude a new employment contract or to engage in the trade concerned for a maximum of six months.

According to the legislative history an agreement of non-competition could be justified if an employee is in a position where he or she will obtain competitively important and protected information, or similar know-how and other technical know-how accumulates to him or her.

 The Supreme Court considered that K Oy´s main deliveries did not normally involve research and development which would include the knowledge or know-how that the competitors would not commonly use. The Supreme Court also considered that most of R´s duties as a programmer had been such that competitively important know-how and technical know-how had not accumulated to R. R had not participated in company´s sales activities and planning of offers. R´s status and salary at the K Oy had been such that they did not support permissibility of agreement of non-competition.

The Supreme Court decided that there was not a particularly weighty reason in accordance with the Employment Contracts Act, chapter 3, section 5, paragraph 1, to use an agreement of non-competition in R`s employment contract.