NEWSLETTER-2017

276 NEWSLETTER 2017 “… Although provisions that stipulate non-competition inside the borders of the country are deemed invalid, limitation inside the borders of a province or a district could be seen valid as regards to the qualification of the case. In this specific case, when the provisions regulating the non-competition between the plaintiff and the defendant and the provisions referring to non- competition are evaluated, the fact that the time period for the non-competition in the noncompetition agreement is decided as one year, but there is no limitation with regard to the locus and business time is adopted as the reasons of invalidity, the claim is dismissed. However, it is stated in the agreement that the defen- dant employee cannot operate in the same context as the subject of the agreement in other companies and institutions operating in the same field. It is also stated that the non-competition shall be industry-specific and a penal clause shall be added in the event of infringement of the non-competition clause, irrespective of the existence of the company’s damage. The defendant worked in the claimant company inside the borders of … Province as sales manager and in the company where he lately started working with the title of sales manager, and his work field is determined as … Province … District. Although, there is no explicit regu- lation with respect to locus in the non-competition agreement, it is apparent that the defendant works in another company in the same sector, within the borders of the same province, under the same title. Moreover, it is understood that the defendant who is in the position of sales manager in the plaintiff company acquired information regarding the circle of customers of the company, and usage of this information is potentially harmful and to the detri- ment of the plaintiff company.” 8 Therefore, the case-law of the Court of Cassation supports the opinion that the judge may sustain the agreement even if there is no limitation in the non-competition clause, provided that the employee works in the same area, operation field and type of work, in the spe- cific case. Moreover, the Court of Cassation, in another dispute that it elaborated upon in this respect, is of the opinion that Article 445/2 8 Court of Cassation, 11. HD, T. 30.3.2016, E. 2015/8396, K. 2016/3470, http:// www.kazanci.com.tr/ (Access Date: 23.11.2017).