The Office for the Protection of Competition (the "ÚOHS") has expanded its focus into the labor market, specifically targeting so-called no-poach agreements, whereby parties agree not to poach each other’s employees, and non-solicitation agreements, which involve a commitment by parties not to approach or solicit the other party’s employees. In this context, the ÚOHS has issued its official position on issues concerning the admissibility of so-called ancillary restrictions in the context of labor market agreements.
A no-poach agreement involves two or more employers agreeing not to actively approach each other's employees or not to hire them at all. Agreements on aligning wages or other working conditions—known as wage-fixing—or the exchange of sensitive information regarding employee remuneration are also considered high-risk. From the perspective of competition law, these represent a significant restriction of competition in the labor market.
The reason for this strict approach is that employees represent an economic resource for businesses similar to customers or suppliers. If employers agree not to compete in the recruitment of employees, it leads to reduced workforce mobility, restricted wage growth, and a weakened competitive environment. The ÚOHS therefore views no-poach agreements as equivalent to traditional cartels, which can have negative impacts not only on employees but also on efficiency and innovation in the economy as a whole.
At the same time, however, it cannot be said that every employee non-solicitation clause is automatically illegal. In May 2026, the ÚOHS published a position paper admitting the possibility of certain restrictions as so-called ancillary restrictions to an otherwise legitimate commercial transaction. Typically, this may involve relationships between a temporary employment agency and its client or certain M&A transactions. However, the condition is that the restriction must be directly related to the specific transaction, objectively necessary for its implementation, and proportionate in both scope and duration.
Proportionality will be crucial in practice. The ÚOHS explicitly warns that clauses prohibiting the solicitation of employees for the entire duration of their employment or arrangements that effectively prevent an employee from changing jobs of their own initiative will generally be inadmissible. Nor does the fact that an agreement affects only a limited number of workers or has a negligible impact on the market guarantee its legality in itself.
This text was translated by AI.
