A three-year clause carries a serious risk of invalidity, but the outcome depends on the true nature of the cooperation, the restriction's scope and its proportionality. The two-year limit in Section 672a applies directly to commercial agency; courts have applied its criteria by analogy to other agreements in particular cases. It is therefore unsafe to claim that every three-year non-compete imposed on every self-employed contractor is automatically invalid. The securing penalty and whether the cooperation was actually dependent work must also be examined.
The cooperation has ended, but a clause says you may not earn your living in your usual field for three years. Self-employed contractors have neither employee protection nor directly applicable commercial agency rules. That is precisely why it matters to know how courts assess such clauses.
A three-year clause carries a serious risk of invalidity
There is no single special regime for every type of cooperation with self-employed contractors. In particular disputes, courts have turned to the closest regime, the commercial agent’s non-compete under Section 672a of the Commercial Code (Act No. 513/1991 Coll.), and applied its criteria by analogy to other contract types: writing, a maximum of two years after termination, and a defined territory or customer group. A dispute over a works contract illustrates this. The contractor undertook not to contract with the customer’s partners for three years. Applying Section 672a, the courts invalidated the clause for lacking a territorial limit, exceeding two years and offering no compensation. The Slovak Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law in order 4Obdo/17/2016 of 30 September 2016.
Outside the direct scope of Section 672a, the use of these criteria and the outcome must be assessed by reference to the contract type and proportionality. A disproportionate clause may fall foul of the general rule in the Civil Code (Act No. 40/1964 Coll.):
A legal act is invalid if its content or purpose conflicts with or circumvents the law or is contrary to good morals.
— Section 39 of the Civil Code (unofficial English translation)
A blanket business prohibition interferes with freedom of enterprise beyond what is needed to protect the other party. Such an exercise of rights is not protected under Section 3(1) of the Civil Code either.
What the court weighs
The Section 672a criteria, including the two-year limit, may be used as guidance, but their application by analogy must be justified. The assessment also covers a specific territory or customer group, a prohibition linked to work actually performed for the partner, and proportionality to its protected interest, such as customers or know-how. Compensation for refraining from competition is not a statutory condition for self-employed contractors, but its absence weighs against the clause. Where Section 672a applies, a court may also restrict an excessive clause in doubtful cases (subsection 2); drafting should not rely on that intervention. The contractual penalty securing the obligation stands or falls with it: a penalty cannot be recovered for an invalid obligation.
A second question: was this dependent work?
If you worked under the partner’s instructions, in its name, at its times and using its resources, the relationship may be assessed as dependent work. The clause is then measured against the strict Section 83a of the Labour Code (Act No. 311/2001 Coll.): no more than one year, mandatory financial compensation and inclusion directly in the employment contract, otherwise it is invalid. See validity of post-employment non-competes for detail. If you were a commercial agent, Section 672a applies directly, as discussed in commercial agents’ non-compete clauses.
How we can help
We assess the clause before signing through contract review and structure cooperation with self-employed contractors to protect customers while minimising the risk of invalidity or reclassification. If the other party already seeks the penalty or breaches the restriction, we take over court representation. Have the clause assessed before deciding whether to accept or reject a competitor’s offer.
This answer provides general information on the law as at 10 September 2026. It does not constitute legal services or replace an assessment of an individual case. The details of your situation may differ. Book a consultation to discuss them.
