Often considered as an obstacle to the employee’s freedom of work because of the restrictions that weigh on him, the non-competition clause is nonetheless essential to protect the economic and financial interests of the company. Thus, the case law seems to have struck a balance by identifying a certain number of criteria of validity. We know that a “non-competition clause is only lawful if it is essential to the protection of the legitimate interests of the company, limited in time and space, that it takes into account the specificities of the business. employment of the employee and includes the obligation for the employer to pay the employee a financial contribution, these conditions being cumulative ”(Soc. 10 July 2002, n ° 99-43.334, D. 2002. 2491 , note Y. Serra 
; Dr. soc. 2002. 949, note R. Vatinet ; RTD civ. 2003. 58, obs. J. Hauser ). It is this last condition that will focus our attention.
The obligation imposed on the employer to pay financial compensation is protean and depends closely on the provisions of the agreements. Very often, the amount of the indemnity is fixed in proportion to the salary, the latter being moreover liable to vary according to the duration of the execution of the clause, the employee’s seniority or the causes of termination of the employment contract. . In all cases, the amount and terms of payment of the financial contribution are guided by the principle of contractual freedom. But what about when the parties bound by the non-competition clause finally estimate the amount …
–
