Legal Ground and 360Competition have advised APS Holding on its acquisition of IMO Property Investments Bucharest and its portfolio from Eurobank. Schoenherr reportedly advised Eurobank.
APS is a distressed assets investment company and debt recovery platform.
The Legal Ground team included Partners Mihai Dudoiu and Sergiu Negreanu and Counsel Sorina Stefoni.
The 360Competition team included Partner Adrian Ster and Senior Associate Raluca Maxim.
AKT Todorovic & Partners has joined forces with PR Legal with Ivan Todorovic becoming a Partner. At the same time, Ivana Ruzicic has taken over as sole Managing Partner.
PR Legal stated that “this merger significantly strengthens PR Legal’s Corporate and Commercial Law practice while expanding our expertise in Intellectual Property, Dispute Resolution, and Insolvency and Reorganization Law. We are particularly excited to grow our practice in Sports Law, a dynamic and rapidly developing area, allowing us to further establish PR Legal as a leading player in these vital sectors.”
Finally, with Ruzicic taking over as the sole Managing Partner of PR Legal, the firm stated that Senior Partner Milan Petrovic will “remain a key figure in the firm, bringing years of invaluable experience and a strong network of client relationships that continue to support our growth. His ability to build lasting client partnerships and handle challenging legal matters ensures that PR Legal stays on a strong path forward.”
In recent years, the European Union has paid special attention to the management of non-performing loans (NPLs), as these loans significantly impact the economic and financial stability of member states. As part of this effort, (EU) Directive 2021/2167 was introduced, which member states were originally required to implement into national law by 29 December 2023. However, in Hungary, the draft law aimed at implementing the directive was only presented to Parliament in March 2025.
The draft law concerning credit servicers and credit purchasers of non-performing credit agreements may bring significant changes to the current regulations on debt purchasing and debt management, as well as to the operations of market participants involved in these activities. The aim of the legislation, in line with EU objectives, is to facilitate the transfer of NPLs from credit institutions, establish a unified legal framework for credit servicers and credit purchasers and ensure the protection of consumers– particularly borrowers.
Accordingly, the draft law provides detailed regulations on debt management (credit servicing) and debt purchasing activities related to non-performing loan agreements or receivables arising from them, outlining the licensing and supervisory requirements for the involved parties.
Regarding licensing obligations, the draft law introduces new terminology and distinguishes between credit servicers and credit purchasers. A credit servicer is a legal person that, on behalf of the credit purchaser, commercially manages non-performing loans, including collecting or recovering payments, renegotiating terms with borrowers and enforcing claims. This essentially aligns with the current debt management activities. The credit purchaser, on the other hand, is a market participant (natural or legal person) that buys non-performing credit agreements or claims arising from them but does not engage in credit servicing activities itself. While credit servicers are required to obtain a license from the Hungarian National Bank, being the supervisory authority, credit purchasers do not need such a license if they do not engage in direct debt management activities.
This regulatory approach marks a significant departure from the logic of the current law on credit institutions and financial enterprises, which has previously required a license for debt purchasing, regardless of who manages or collects the debt. Under the new regime, the regulation will be divided: different licensing provisions will apply to debt purchasing and debt management, depending on whether the debt relates to non-performing credit agreements covered by the draft law or arises from other sources such as intercompany lending, performing loans, leasing, factoring or other non-financial services. These types of receivables will continue to be governed by the current regulations for credit institutions and financial enterprises; acquiring or purchasing them will remain subject to licensing.
This new dual regulatory system presents several challenges for the Hungarian market. The parallel application of different licensing and supervisory requirements may impose significant administrative and financial burdens on market participants, while the complexity of compliance and record-keeping obligations could create bureaucratic hurdles. Furthermore, the overlap of different regulatory frameworks may lead to legal uncertainty, making it more difficult for stakeholders to fully comply with the statutory requirements.
In addition, in line with the EU directive, the draft law allows for cross-border credit servicing activities. This means that credit servicers operating in EEA member states will be able to offer services in Hungary and vice versa, Hungarian credit servicers will be able to enter the markets of other EEA countries. This provision is expected to stimulate market competition, potentially creating more favourable conditions for borrowers in the long run. Additionally, credit institutions or financial enterprises that already hold a lending or debt purchasing license under the current law on credit institutions and financial enterprises will be able to conduct credit servicing activities without needing a separate license from the Hungarian National Bank.
It is important to note that the draft law may still change in the near future based on any amendments submitted. However, it is already advisable for market participants to closely monitor developments, as they will be the ones who need to adapt to the new regulatory environment once it is implemented.
By Gergely Szaloki, Senior Associate, and Noemi Csiki, Associate, Wolf Theiss
The Chamber of Deputies has approved an amendment to the Labour Code, which should increase flexibility in employment relations. Unless something unexpected happens, most of the amendment will become
effective as of 1 June 2025. It introduces a number of significant changes that will affect most employers. Below is a brief overview of the most important ones.
First of all, the amendment aims to speed up and simplify the termination of employment relationships. A notice period is to start from the date of delivery of the notice (i.e. not from the first day of the following month) and in some cases is to be reduced to one month. The amendment also merges the existing “health” reasons for termination and changes the concept of compensation payable to employees in connection with termination on grounds of a work-related injury or occupational disease.
A trial period is to be extended to four months for ordinary employees and eight months for management personnel. It should also be possible to additionally extend the agreed trial period. However, the new rules apply only to trial periods agreed after the amendment becomes effective.
The amendment also facilitates the position of parents in the labour market. When returning from parental leave, it guarantees the right to return to the “same chair” until the child reaches the age of 2 years. During parental leave, it will also be possible to earn extra income by performing the same type of work for the employer under an agreement to complete a job / to perform work (DPP/DPČ).
Employers will surely appreciate the fact that the amendment abolishes mandatory initial medical examinations for non-hazardous jobs. The amendment also significantly changes the concept of unemployment benefits and prohibits employers from restricting employees from disclosing information about their remuneration (i.e. requiring so-called wage confidentiality clauses).
The changes introduced by the amendment will require most employers to adjust their employment law documentation and HR processes. In this respect, we recommend paying attention to the transitional provisions, according to which some matters will still be governed by the original legislation even after the amendment becomes effective (e.g. the duration of the notice period for a notice delivered before the amendment becomes effective).
By Lenka Droscova, Partner, and Vaclav Belohoubek, Senior Associate, Act Legal
On 9 April 2025, Law of Ukraine No. 4292-IX On Amendments to the Civil Code of Ukraine on Enhancing the Protection of Bona Fide Owner’s Rights (the “Law”) came into force. The Law aims to enhance the protection of bona fide owners’ rights by establishing a time limit for the reclamation of real estate of such bona fide owners and providing compensation to them for such reclamation.
Highlights
Ukrainian laws on bona fide owners
A bona fide owner is a person who, at the time of acquiring property, neither knew nor could have reasonably known that another person had no right to alienate this property. The rights of a bona fide owner who acquired property under a non-gratuitous agreement are protected, among other things, by:
A claim for reclamation of property from a bona fide owner must be filed within the statute of limitations calculated from the date when the person knew or could have reasonably known of the violation of their right or the identity of the violator.
Upon entry into force, the Law has introduced additional protection for bona fide owners of real estate previously owned by the state or local authorities by establishing a time limit after which the state or local authority will no longer be able to reclaim such property.
Therefore, even if the state or local authority becomes aware of the violation of their right and may file a claim for property reclamation within the statute of limitations, they will not be able to reclaim certain types of property from a bona fide owner if the time limit established by the Law has expired.
10-year time limit for the state or local authority to reclaim certain types of property
Real estate transferred from state or municipal ownership to private ownership cannot be reclaimed by the state or local authority from a bona fide owner if a 10-year period has passed
The change of the first and subsequent owners does not affect the time limit for reclaiming property.
The above time limit rules do not apply if, at the time of loss of property possession by the state or municipal authority, the property was classified as
It should be noted that the scope of these time limit rules for property reclamation specifically applies to vindication lawsuit (i.e., lawsuits for reclaiming property from someone else’s illegal possession or from a bona fide owner).
A vindication claim is possible if there is no binding (contractual) relationship between the owner of the property whose rights have been violated and the formal owner of the property who is in unlawful possession of the property, which gave rise to the loss of property possession by the former owner. If such a relationship exists, reclamation lawsuit is not filed. Instead, the property owner whose rights have been violated must file a lawsuit to invalidate the relevant agreement and seek the return of the property transferred under the invalid agreement. The Law does not provide for time limit for such claims.
Ensuring that a bona fide owner whose property is reclaimed by the state or local authorities receives compensation for the value of the property
The law establishes a mechanism to ensure that a bona fide owner whose property is reclaimed by the state or local authorities receives compensation for the property’s value.
Compensation is provided by requiring the state, local authorities, or prosecutor to deposit an amount equal to the property’s value into the court’s deposit account before filing a lawsuit. The property’s value is determined based on its valuation as of the date the lawsuit is filed. Documents confirming the deposit of the required amount into the court’s deposit account shall be attached to the lawsuit.
Simultaneously with deciding on whether to satisfy a claim for the reclamation of real estate from a bona fide owner in favor of the state or a territorial community, the court shall decide whether the state or local authority shall compensate the bona fide owner for the property’s value. Compensation for the value of real estate from the court’s deposit account is transferred without the need for the bona fide owner to file a separate lawsuit against the state or territorial community.
Effect of changes over time
The time limit rules also apply to the reclamation by the state or territorial community of real estate, the ownership of which arose before the Law became effective.
The rules for compensating a bona fide owner whose property is reclaimed by the state or local authorities also apply to cases where the court of first instance had not made a decision to reclaim property from a bona fide owner as of the date the Law became effective. However, the Law does not provide for the procedure for the state, territorial community, or prosecutor to deposit the relevant funds into the court’s deposit account for cases already pending in the courts of first instance.
By Serhiy Piontkovsky, and Lina Nemchenko, Partners, Baker McKenzie
Good news for companies seeking to collect debts from Romanian business partners: the Romanian Parliament has recently passed a draft law amending the threshold value for the country’s small claims procedure.
By increasing the threshold value for what qualifies as a “small claim” from approximately EUR 2,000 to EUR 10,000, Romania is significantly expanding the coverage of its most expedient debt collection court action. The small claims procedure offers claimants a time- and cost-efficient alternative to standard (common law) debt collection procedures, which are often lengthy, costly and burdensome for the parties involved.
This legislative amendment seeks to accelerate debt collection processes and reduce the courts’ workload. Initially introduced as a temporary measure to support businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic, the increased threshold value of EUR 10,000 for small claims proved effective, leading to its recent reinstatement.
When can you use the small claims procedure?
This debt collection option applies exclusively to civil and commercial disputes involving monetary claims with a value of up to EUR 10,000, excluding interest, costs and other accessories of the claim as of the date the court action is filed. The procedure does not apply to matters related to tax, customs or administrative matters, or to disputes involving employment law, arbitration, insurance and similar areas.
How does it work?
The procedure is conducted in writing and typically takes place without the parties appearing in court, except in special cases, such as when the court deems it necessary or upon request of a party. The claimant is required to fill out a standard form and submit supporting documents. Similar requirements apply to the defendant’s answer. The procedure also allows the defendant to file a counterclaim.
The stamp duty is capped at approximately EUR 40, thus considerably reducing debt collection costs. Comparatively, in a standard debt collection court procedure, the value of the stamp duty is calculated pro-rata to the value of the claim. Therefore, for a claim of EUR 10,000, it would amount to approximately EUR 420.
While the decision of the first procedural court is subject to appeal, it is enforceable regardless of any appeal filed against it. Enforcement of the decision may be suspended upon justified grounds, provided bail amounting to 10 % of the contested value is deposited.
Another factor contributing to the efficiency of the small claims procedure is that it is not subject to a second appeal, unlike debt collection court proceedings under common law.
The European small claims procedure
The Romanian small claims procedure is largely similar to the European framework established by EU Regulation No. 861/2007 on the European Small Claims Procedure. The European procedure refers to cross-border cases where at least one of the parties is domiciled or habitually resident in a Member State other than that of the court where the claim is filed.
Since the national and European procedures are alternative, the claimant can choose the Romanian small claims procedure even in cross-border cases, provided that national courts have jurisdiction to settle the claim. With the European procedure’s current threshold set at EUR 5,000, the new threshold in the Romanian small claims procedure offers a more wide-ranging alternative in such cases.
What’s next?
The law introducing the new threshold in the Romanian small claims procedure will enter into force after its promulgation and publication in the Official Gazette of Romania. It will be applicable to claims filed after it comes into effect.
By Andrea Gal and Marcel Mamaliga, Senior Attorneys at Law, Schoenherr
On 17 January 2025, the Ministry of Labor, Employment, Veteran and Social Affairs of the Republic of Serbia rendered two new rulebooks in the field of occupational safety and health, the implementation of which begins on 28 April 2025, as follows:
Rulebook on the manner and deadlines for keeping records in the field of safety and health at work
The new Rulebook regulates in more detail the manner of keeping records in the field of safety and health at work by the employer.
With the beginning of its implementation, the previous Rulebook on records in the field of safety and health at work (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”, no. 62/07 and 102/15) ceases to be valid.
Unlike the previous 14, the new Rulebook envisages 11 forms of records in the field of safety and health at work, whereby some records have been changed, and some have been removed or replaced with new records, and now read:
Records in the field of safety and health at work are certified by the employer and signed by the advisor/associate for safety and health at work as a rule. Employers are now allowed to keep all records, with the exception of Form 6, in electronic form, using a qualified electronic certificate.
The deadlines for keeping said records according to the provisions of the new Rulebook are:
Rulebook on Preventive Measures for Safe and Healthy Work at Height
The new Rulebook on Preventive Measures for Safe and Healthy Work at Height defines in more detail what is to be considered work at height. Namely, work at height within the meaning of this Rulebook is considered to be any work on scaffolding, working platforms or ladders, on the maintenance of installations in industrial facilities, on trees, on the outer parts of buildings, on the roof, etc.
In order to avoid working at height, the Employer is obliged to provide all possible technical measures and means, especially equipment for mechanized work. However, when it is not possible to avoid working at a height, the employer is obliged to provide employees with the use of personal protective equipment, as well as fall protection systems, such as protective fences, protective nets, and other fall arrest equipment in order to prevent falls from a height.
Furthermore, the duty of employers is more detailly regulated to assess the risk of injury and damage to the health of employees for all workplaces where there is a possibility of working at height. The employer fulfils this obligation by adopting a risk assessment act, whereby it is obligatory to take into account hazards such as unsecured edges and openings, fragile and breakable surfaces that cannot withstand the weight of employees, sharp edges on structures, hazards related to weather conditions, proximity to power lines, as well as other prescribed hazards and harmfulness.
The employer is also obliged to provide employees who work at height with a work permit, which includes, among other things, the location (place of work), the name of the workplace, a precise description of the work performed at height with the methods of work, a list of work equipment intended for temporary work at height and a list of personal protective equipment.
Finally, it is prescribed that the person who performs these tasks must meet additional requirements in terms of medical fitness, must perform regular medical examinations (before starting work and periodically), and must complete training for safe and healthy work.
By Jelena Nikolic, Partner, and Marko Ilic, Senior Associate, JPM Partners Serbia
The final and binding nature of arbitral awards provides legal predictability to the parties while also allowing for the possibility of material errors or omissions in the arbitral decisions.
In this context, ICC Arbitration Rules allow for the correction or completion of an award under certain conditions, ensuring the protection of parties’ rights. However, the high costs associated with correction processes resulting from the tribunal’s own errors raise questions about the compatibility of these costs with fundamental arbitration principles such as accessibility and party autonomy. This process, shaped by ICC Rules and Law No. 4686 on International Arbitration, has significant legal and financial implications for the parties in practice, making it essential to carefully assess post-award procedures.
ICC Arbitration Proceedings
The International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) has become one of the most frequently chosen arbitration institutions by individuals and legal entities seeking dispute resolution. One of the main reasons for this is ICC’s long-standing tradition, dating back to 1919, which upholds the principles of “neutrality” and “independence.”
Cases in Which Correction and Additional Decision May Be Requested Under ICC Rules
According to the ICC Rules, error correction can be requested in two situations. The first occurs when a material error is present in the arbitral award due to the arbitrator. In such cases, the concerned parties may request the correction of this error. Applications for correction, aimed at rectifying clerical, computational, or other material mistakes in the award, must be submitted to the ICC Arbitration Secretariat within 30 days from the notification of the award.
Similarly, if the arbitral tribunal has failed to address one of the parties’ claims, the concerned party may request an additional decision to cover the omitted issues. This request must also be submitted to the Secretariat within 30 days from the notification of the award.
The arbitral tribunal, upon receiving the request, informs the opposing party and typically allows them a period not exceeding 30 days to submit their views. After this period, the tribunal must submit its draft decision to the ICC Court within a maximum of 30 days or within a timeframe determined by the Court. Correction or interpretation decisions are issued as an annex to the award, whereas additional decisions, if granted, are issued separately.
Pursuant to Article 36(1) of the ICC Rules, only clerical, computational, or similar material errors in the award are subject to correction or an additional decision. The tribunal does not have the authority to issue an additional decision or correction concerning the substantive aspects of the award. Rather, only elements affecting the comprehensibility and enforceability of the decision—such as a mathematical miscalculation or a missing conjunction—may be amended.1
Remission of the Arbitral Award, Additional Costs, and Party Rights
If a court remands an arbitral award to the tribunal, the provisions of Articles 32, 34, 35, and 36 of the ICC Rules apply to the extent appropriate. Depending on the conditions set forth in the court’s remand decision, the arbitral tribunal may either rectify or complete the deficiencies in the award by issuing a new decision or amend the previous one. In this process, the ICC Court takes the necessary measures to ensure that the tribunal complies with the court’s instructions and may determine an advance payment covering the arbitrators’ additional fees, expenses, and ICC’s extra administrative costs. This mechanism aims to both preserve the efficiency of arbitration proceedings and protect the rights of the parties, thereby contributing to legal certainty in post-award procedures.
In this context, it is crucial to emphasize that parties retain the right to object to any resulting costs. Expecting parties to bear the financial burden of correcting an error or omission caused by the tribunal itself—especially when the associated costs are substantial—would contradict fundamental principles promised by the ICC before arbitration, particularly “Access to Justice” and “Party Autonomy”. Moreover, the ICC Secretariat evaluates such objections and has, in certain cases, reversed its initial demands for cost payments previously communicated to the parties.
Correction and Additional Decision Requests Under Law No. 4686 on International Arbitration
In addition to the ICC Rules, when the seat of arbitration is in Turkey and, consequently, lex arbitri is Turkish law, the relevant provisions of Law No. 4686 on International Arbitration (“IAL”) must also be considered. Article 14 of the IAL grants parties the opportunity to assess arbitral awards more thoroughly and to apply for corrections or additions where necessary.
According to Article 14 of the IAL, arbitral awards must include the identities of the parties, the legal grounds upon which the decision is based, the seat and date of arbitration, the signatures of the arbitrators, and any dissenting opinions. The award is communicated to the parties by the arbitrator or the presiding arbitrator of the tribunal. The parties may also request that the award be submitted to the civil court of first instance, provided they cover the associated costs.
For the correction of clerical, computational, or similar material errors in the award, either party may apply to the arbitral tribunal within 30 days from the notification of the award. This request must also be communicated to the opposing party. After receiving the opposing party’s views, if the tribunal deems the request justified, it must issue a correction or interpretation decision within a maximum of 30 days. The arbitrator or the tribunal may also correct such material errors on its own initiative within 30 days from the date of the award.
Additionally, if a party had raised a claim during the arbitration proceedings that was not addressed in the award, they may request a supplementary arbitral decision. This request must also be made within 30 days from the notification of the award, and if deemed justified, the tribunal must issue a supplementary decision within a maximum of 60 days. These corrections, interpretations, and supplementary decisions are communicated to the parties and are considered an integral part of the arbitral award.
Conclusion
In conclusion, despite the finality of arbitral awards, the ICC Arbitration Rules and Law No. 4686 on International Arbitration provide exceptional mechanisms for correcting material errors and addressing omitted claims. However, the imposition of high costs on parties for corrections necessitated by the tribunal’s own errors has led to debates in practice. The ICC Secretariat’s occasional review of such costs helps ensure alignment with the principles of accessibility and party autonomy in arbitration proceedings.
Therefore, parties engaging in arbitration must carefully consider post-award procedures and potential additional costs. Correction and additional decision mechanisms should not be viewed merely as remedial tools but as integral components of the arbitration process, necessitating strategic planning accordingly.
1 Webster, Thomas H.; Bühler, Michael. Handbook of ICC Arbitration. London, 2021.
By Tarik Guleryuz, Partner, and Berre Nazli Celik, Legal Intern, Guleryuz & Partners
Former Home Credit International Chief Legal & Compliance Officer Martin Seda has joined CME as Group Legal and Compliance Director.
CME is a content creator and broadcaster operating in six Central and Eastern European countries.
Prior to the move, Seda was with Home Credit International between 2017 and 2025 and was the company’s Chief Legal & Compliance Officer since 2024 (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on May 10, 2024).
Earlier, Seda worked for Kinstellar as a Managing Associate between 2016 and 2017 and as a Senior Associate between 2015 and 2016. Earlier still, he worked for Hogan Lovells as a Senior Associate between 2012 and 2014, as an Associate between 2009 and 2012, and as a Trainee between 2004 and 2009.
Originally reported by CEE In-House Matters.
Kosovo is accelerating its energy transition, SEPA integration, and corporate transparency, aligning with EU standards to boost investment, competition, and economic stability, according to Nallbani Law Office Managing Partner Delvina Nallbani.
“Kosovo is making strides in its renewable energy transition, aiming to add 1,300 megawatts of new capacity by 2031,” Nallbani begins. “Lignite power plants continue to struggle to meet electricity demand, which has driven the government to introduce competitive auctions for renewable energy projects. These auctions replace the previous system of direct negotiations with investors. The country held its first 100-megawatt solar auction through competitive bidding in 2024, and plans in the future to conduct regular solar and wind auctions through long-term Power Purchase Agreements..”
Nallbani also highlights that “the recently adopted Law on the Promotion of Renewable Energy Sources establishes transparent and competitive bidding criteria, where bids are evaluated primarily on price, and those exceeding the set price threshold are disqualified.” According to her, “investors can benefit from ‘privileged producer status,’ which grants access to government-backed financial support schemes. To support renewable energy investments, Kosovo has introduced two financial assistance mechanisms: contracts for difference which ensure financial balance between a reference price and a fixed price, and premium contracts, which provide a fixed premium above market prices to ensure financial stability.” The duration of these contracts, according to Nallbani, “varies by energy type – wind projects typically range from 15 to 20 years, while solar projects have contract terms of 12 to 15 years.”
Another major development, Nallbani stresses, “is Kosovo’s efforts to join the Single Euro Payments Area, a key step toward aligning with EU regulations. The Central Bank of Kosovo has initiated the process, which will harmonize local regulations with EU standards on banking, anti-money laundering, and payment services. Currently, banks dominate Kosovo’s financial sector, but SEPA membership is expected to open the market to new players, including electronic money institutions.” Nallbani believes that this expansion “will boost competition, reduce reliance on cash transactions, and make cross-border payments more efficient. SEPA membership will also benefit businesses engaged in exports by lowering transaction costs and increasing the attractiveness of Kosovo’s financial services.” The accession process involves two main steps, she emphasizes: “Kosovo must first be accepted into SEPA, and then service providers can apply to join SEPA payment schemes. While the exact timeline depends on EU institutions, Kosovo’s financial providers, particularly banks, must comply with the new regulations at least one month before applying for SEPA scheme participation.”
Lastly, Nallbani draws attention to a law establishing a beneficial ownership registry. “The law, which came into force in September 2024, requires all business organizations, registered entities, and NGOs to disclose their beneficial owners. The registry will be administered by the Kosovo Business Registration Agency, creating a centralized database of ownership information.” Under the law, she notes, “a beneficial owner is defined as an individual who ultimately owns or controls at least 25% of a company’s shares. The Registry must be operational within one year of the law’s effective date – December 7, 2024, while existing entities will have 60 days to comply once the registry becomes operational. Previously, the companies were required to disclose their ownership only to banks when opening bank accounts, but this new law ensures comprehensive reporting to a public authority.”