Non‑compete violation in Milan.

The non‑compete agreement, governed by article 2125 of the Civil Code, is the fundamental legal tool by which a company protects its intangible assets, technical‑commercial know‑how and market goodwill, restricting the employee’s professional activity for the period following termination of the employment relationship. However, contractual breaches are a frequent phenomenon: former administrators, executives or key‑men who, while receiving the agreed monetary compensation, launch activities in direct competition or provide covert consulting services to direct competitors.

Arcadia Company assists entrepreneurs, human‑resources directors and internal legal departments in gathering objective evidence to demonstrate breach of the contractual covenant. By activating complex investigative protocols, we operate both in the field and digitally to turn mere suspicions or commercial anomalies into an unassailable evidentiary dossier, essential for enabling the company’s lawyers to file urgent motions, request judicial injunctions and immediately suspend the payment of residual compensation.

The dual economic and commercial prejudice for the company

The illicit conduct of the former collaborator causes a multidimensional patrimonial damage that directly impacts the financial stability and competitive positioning of the injured company:

• Direct financial damage: the company continues to fulfill the contractual obligation, paying a significant portion of remuneration as consideration for an exclusivity that, in fact, is systematically breached by the beneficiary.
• Commercial damage and client diversion: the individual improperly exploits the company’s informational assets, price lists, supply flows and established fiduciary relationships to take market share, causing a revenue shift toward the competing firm (often also constituting unfair competition under article 2598 of the Civil Code).

Common evasive strategies and investigative verification methods

Anyone who breaches a non‑compete agreement almost always employs complex legal and corporate maneuvers to conceal the interposition or execution of their work activity. Arcadia Company’s investigation protocols are specifically designed to dismantle such simulations:

• Fake external consulting or use of a VAT‑registered entity: the former employee is not formally hired by the competitor, but operates through a sole proprietorship or a third‑party consulting firm with generic ATECO codes. Through operational stakeouts and documentary checks, our investigators demonstrate the subject’s real and exclusive activity on behalf of the competitor.
• Use of front persons and corporate screens: the new commercial entity or competing corporate structure is registered to close relatives (spouse, children) or trustees. In this scenario, we document the subject’s daily presence in the company premises, participation in decision‑making tables and effective control of the structure.
• Geographic limit evasion: the agreement defines specific territorial boundaries; the subject formally establishes its operational base outside that perimeter, yet continues to meet clients and conduct commercial negotiations within the area protected by the contractual restriction.

Guidance of case law of legitimacy: The Court of Cassation has clarified that, for the purpose of establishing a violation, it is not necessary for the former employee to carry out an autonomous entrepreneurial activity; it is sufficient that they engage in any work or professional activity, even free of charge or indirectly, capable of creating potential competition with the former employer.

Forensic value of the evidentiary dossier and motions under article 700 c.p.c.

To obtain the acceptance of an urgent motion under article 700 c.p.c., the company must rigorously demonstrate both the fumus boni iuris (the certain existence of the contractual breach) and the periculum in mora (the imminence of irreparable damage to the corporate assets). Chamber of commerce extracts or simple verbal reports are procedurally insufficient.

Arcadia Company, under a Prefectural License pursuant to article 134 T.U.L.P.S., issues a technical report of high forensic value. The dossier includes geolocated video‑photographic inspections, reports on participation in sector fairs under false identities, documentary tracing and OSINT and forensic IT activities aimed at crystallising deleted messages, emails or social posts that evidence the illicit activity. The investigators who conducted the inquiry are also available to testify in court, safeguarding the authenticity of the evidence against any party‑based exception.

Data processing and protection of corporate confidentiality

All phases of the search and monitoring are planned and carried out in full compliance with the European GDPR regulations. The processing of the former employee’s personal data and that of third parties involved is strictly limited to the purpose of protecting the right of defence in court, ensuring the full admissibility of the evidence and preserving the utmost confidentiality of the client’s commercial strategies.