Category: Bosnia and Herzegovina

Conduction of business activities is not possible without possessing a bank account. Business entities[1] are required to open bank accounts, manage all funds through these accounts, and make all payments via these accounts[2], with banks being the only authorized institutions to open and maintain bank accounts[3].

Although possessing a bank account is a prerequisite for conducting business activities, the right to a bank account is not explicitly guaranteed by imperative rules. The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina („Constitution of BiH“) and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms („European Convention“) do not regulate the right of business entities to a bank account.

It is undeniable that denying a business entity the right to a bank account[4] can result in damage for such a business entity. This damage can be particularly severe if every single bank refuses to open an account for the business entity – in such a case, the business entity is prevented from conducting its business activities and generating profit, i.e., acquiring assets. Thus, by denying the right to a bank account, legitimate expectations of the business entity to acquire assets may be disrupted. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg („European Court“) includes the “legitimate expectation to acquire assets“[5] under the property rights protected by the European Convention – this leads us to the conclusion that denying the right to a bank account could violate the business entity’s property rights protected by the European Convention.

In practice, there are frequent cases of denial of the right to a bank account based on regulations stipulated in the Law on Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorist Activities („Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina,” No. 13/2024) („AML Law“), regulations adopted based on the AML Law, including internal acts of banks („AML regulations“).

This review analyzes the justification of denying the right to bank account to business entities from the perspective of AML regulations, as well as the potential violations of property rights that business entities may suffer as a result. 

The Bank’s Right to Deny a Business Entity the Right to a Bank Account from the Perspective of AML Regulations

A bank is not allowed to open a bank account for a client (including a business entity) or must close an already opened bank account if it cannot perform the identification and monitoring measures required by the AML Law. This obligation of the bank arises from Article 14, Paragraph 4 of the AML Law. 

A bank may decide to close an already opened bank account if it determines that it cannot efficiently manage the money laundering and terrorist financing risk in relation to the client („AML risk“). This right of the bank arises from Article 14, Paragraph 5 of the AML Law.

When assessing its ability to manage the AML risk concerning a client, the bank must act in accordance with the principle of good faith and fairness as prescribed in Article 12 of the Law on Obligations of the Republic of Srpska[6]  („RS Law on Obligations“), respectively Article 12 of the Law on Obligations of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina[7] („FBH Law on Obligations“). Efficient management of the AML risk depends on various factors that should be determined in each specific case. One bank may be able to manage AML risks for a particular client effectively, while another bank may not be able to do so. For example, one bank may already have a risk management system in place for a specific group of clients, including the particular client, while another bank may not.

In the event of a dispute regarding the bank’s right to close a client’s bank account due to its inability to effectively manage the AML risk, the burden of proof would be on the bank to demonstrate that it could not manage the AML risk effectively. Such a dispute would almost certainly arise if the client requests compensation for damages caused by the closure of the bank account. If the client proves that damages resulted from the closure of the bank account, the bank, in order to defend itself, would have to prove that the damages occurred without its fault – this is clearly outlined in Article 154 of the RS/FBH Law on Obligations, which stipulates: “Anyone who causes harm to another is obliged to compensate for it unless they prove that the harm occurred without their fault.” In this regard, the bank could be relieved of liability if it can demonstrate that it acted in good faith (Article 90, Paragraph 2 of the AML Law). Acting in good faith implies proactive engagement by the bank and using available resources to manage the AML risk effectively. The question arises as to how many resources a bank is required to use to ensure effective management of the AML risk. Acting in good faith requires the bank to use the resources that are typically used to manage AML risks in relation to the “average bank client” or “average group of bank clients.” The question is whether the bank can close an account if it determines that it can effectively manage the AML risk, but such management would impose an excessive burden on the bank because, for example, it would require significantly more resources than those the bank uses for managing AML risks concerning the “average bank client” or “average group of bank clients.” In this regard, the AML Law grants the bank the right to close a bank account if the bank assesses that it cannot manage the AML risk. Since the AML Law does not grant the bank the right to close a client’s bank account if effectively managing the AML risk would be uneconomical for the bank, the bank could not close the bank account for this reason alone. However, the bank may protect itself through a contract with the client by reserving the right to terminate the bank account agreement and close the bank account if: (i) managing the AML risk becomes uneconomical for the bank; and/or (ii) the client refuses to provide additional resources to effectively manage the AML risk. An alternative could be for the bank to pass the “additional” cost of managing the AML risk onto the client through the contract. 

Violation of Property Rights as a Result of Denying a Bank Account 

As already mentioned in the introduction: (i) business activities, and thus the acquisition of assets, are not possible without possessing a bank account; (ii) denying the right to a bank account can undermine the legitimate expectations of the business entity to acquire assets, which in itself may result in a violation of property rights protected by the European Convention.

It is crucial to determine whether the denial of property rights resulting from the denial of the right to a bank account aligns with the permissible limitations on property rights as stipulated by the European Convention. There is no known practice of the European Court that provides a clear answer to this question. However, there is case law from the European Court that could indirectly examine this issue[8]. 

According to Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention, the right to property may be restricted only in the public interest and under conditions prescribed by law and general principles of international law. Through its case law [9], the European Court has developed a “test” for examining whether a violation of property rights has occurred by evaluating the following three principles contained in Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention (it is sufficient to determine a violation of any of these principles to establish a violation of property rights):

1. Principle of legality. This occurs when the restriction on property is contrary to national laws. It is expected that this violation will generally be rectified by national courts. The principle of legality also presupposes that the provisions of domestic law are sufficiently accessible, precise, and predictable in their application.
2. Principle of legitimate aim in the public/general interest. Any interference with the enjoyment of property rights protected by the European Convention must have a legitimate goal. According to the protection system established by the European Convention, it is the obligation of national authorities to make an initial assessment regarding the existence of a public interest problem and determine the measures necessary to apply in relation to the exercise of property rights, including the deprivation or control of property. In this regard, national authorities have broad discretion. The European Court has stated that it will respect the legislature’s assessment of what constitutes “public interest,” provided that such an assessment is not manifestly unfounded[10].
3. Principle of fair balance. Interference with the peaceful enjoyment of property and the restraint from taking action must achieve a fair balance between the needs of the community’s general interest and the requirements of protecting the fundamental rights of individuals under the European Convention. In every case where there has been a violation of the property rights protected by the European Convention, the European Court must determine whether the individual has had to bear an disproportionate and excessive burden as a result of the state’s (non)action.

AML regulations in certain cases grant banks the right to deny access to a bank account (as detailed in section I. above). Thus, in this specific case, the principle of legality is respected as long as AML regulations are clear, precise, and predictable – this could be problematic because banking activities are highly regulated, and in some cases, it is not entirely clear how a particular issue is regulated. Additionally, in practice, certain internal acts of the bank are often inaccessible to clients, which could result in a violation of the principle of legality. 

The goal of all AML regulations is the prevention and detection of money laundering and terrorist financing. Therefore, in practical terms, the violation of the principle of legitimate aim in the public interest is excluded.

A potential violation of property rights could, in many cases, be proven through the violation of the principle of fair balance. It is reasonable to conclude that denying access to a bank account is justified in certain cases – for example, when a (potential) client requests the opening of anonymous bank accounts. However, the situation is more complicated when it comes to high-risk clients (e.g., due to the country of origin, business activity, etc.) who do not violate any regulations and are even able to comply with all the requirements the bank set to meet its obligations under the AML regulations. Practically speaking, in such a case, the property right is restricted solely due to the “fear” of AML risk arising, and it could be argued that the fair balance has been disrupted to the detriment of the business entity’s property rights, thus violating the property right protected by the European Convention. 

The Bank’s Autonomy to Decide with Whom to Enter into a Business Relationship – Complete Freedom? 

The general rule is that anyone, including a bank, has the right to freely decide with whom they wish to enter a contractual relationship (Article 10 of the RS/FBH Law on Obligations). This general rule has exceptions when someone is legally required to conclude a contract (Article 27 of the RS/FBH Law on Obligations). These exceptions typically apply to the provision of public services, such as the delivery of electricity, heating, water, etc. However, such an exception is not explicitly provided for banks, at least not when it comes to bank accounts for business entities.

Nevertheless, it must be noted that banks are the only institutions where it is possible to open a bank account from which deposits can be made and withdrawn, and without which activity, practically speaking, there is no free enterprise. In this regard, we could talk about a kind of “monopoly” of banks in providing services related to bank accounts and the potential abuse of the bank’s right to refuse to open a bank account (Article 13 of the RS/FBH Law on Obligations “Prohibition of Abuse of Rights“) – especially when the refusal to open a bank account has no explicit legal basis. 

Furthermore, denying the right to a bank account to an individual who does not violate any legal provisions, solely because of certain characteristics of the individual (e.g., the individual is engaged in cryptocurrency-related activities), may result in discrimination. Such discrimination is prohibited by Article 1 of Protocol 12 of the European Convention and Article II/4 of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

On the other hand, the bank has the right and obligation to adopt internal AML programs, policies, and procedures that, among other things, define which clients are acceptable to the bank[11]. Such regulation opens the possibility for the bank to categorize certain individuals as unacceptable clients. It is reasonable to question whether such regulation aligns with the European Convention, which takes precedence over all laws in Bosnia and Herzegovina under Article II/2 of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Additional Protection of Foreign Business Entities in the Republic of Srpska

Article 57, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Srpska[12] guarantees the right of foreign entities to engage in business or other activities and enjoy the rights related to their business under conditions that cannot be changed to their detriment. 

Since business activities cannot be conducted without a bank account, denying the right to a bank account to a foreign business entity could also result in a violation of the above-mentioned right protected by the Constitution of the Republic of Srpska.

Conclusion 

Denying the right to bank account can result in a violation of the property rights guaranteed by the European Convention, and consequently, the bank may be required to compensate the business entity for the damage caused by this denial. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind the following:

• The AML Law authorizes banks to close a client’s bank account if the bank cannot effectively manage the AML risk. This inability must be objective for the bank, and in the event of a dispute, the bank must prove the existence of such inability. Otherwise, the bank risks being obligated to compensate the client for damage caused by the closure of the account.
• AML regulations provide banks with broad discretionary powers to deny business entities the right to a bank account by categorizing them as unacceptable clients. However, denying the right to a bank account is solely because the bank considers a particular individual “high risk” according to AML regulations and thus “unacceptable to the bank” can result in a violation of the property rights of that individual, and the bank may be liable to compensate for damages. In such a situation, the bank may even act according to AML regulations and still be responsible for damages – this could occur if the court concludes that the AML regulations are contrary to the Constitution of BiH and the European Convention.

Context of the Notice

All the above represents an overview of legal issues related to the right of business entities to a bank account. Nothing in this document constitutes legal advice, and we do not accept any responsibility for actions taken based on the above.

[1] Article 3, paragraph 2 of the Law on Domestic Payment Transactions of the Republic of Srpska („Official Gazette of the Republic of Srpska”, Nos.: 52/2012, 92/2012 – corr., 58/2019, 38/2022, and 63/2024) defines business entities as commercial companies, public enterprises, republic administrative bodies and bodies of local self-government units, banks and other financial organizations, other forms of legal entities whose establishment is registered with the competent authority or established by law, as well as natural persons who independently perform registered business activities. A nearly identical provision is contained in Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Law on Domestic Payment Transactions of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina („Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina”, Nos.: 48/2015, 79/2015 – corr. and 4/2021).”

[2] This obligation arises from Article 8, paragraph 1 of the Law on Domestic Payment Transactions of the Republic of Srpska, respectively from Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Law on Domestic Payment Transactions of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

[3] This undisputedly arises from Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Law on Banks („Official Gazette of the Republic of Srpska”, Nos.: 4/17, 19/18, 54/19, and 63/24), which stipulates the following: “No one other than a bank can engage in accepting deposits or other repayable funds, granting loans, and issuing payment cards within the territory of the Republic of Srpska without a license from the Agency in accordance with this law.” A practically identical provision is prescribed in Article 4, paragraph 4 of the Law on Banks (“Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina”, No.: 27/17).

[4] Whether by the bank’s refusal to open a bank account or by closing an already opened bank account due to the unilateral actions of the bank.

[5] European Court for Human Rights, case: Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. v Belgium, paragraph 31 and case Tre Traktorer v Sweden, judgement dated 7 July 1989.

[6] „Official Gazette of SFRJ“ Nos.: 29/78, 39/85, 45/89 and 57/89, „Official Gazette of Republika Srpska“ Nos “: 17/93, 3/96 and 74/04. 

[7] „Official Gazette of SFRJ“ Nos.: 29/78, 39/85, 45/89 and 57/89, „Official Gazette of RBH“ Nos.: 2/92, 13/93 and 13/94, and  „Official Gazette of FBH“ Nos.:  29/03 i 42/11).

[8] Judgement of the European Court for Human Rights, dated 3 November 2009, Case Suljagić v Bosnia and Herzegovina, application No. 27912/02.

[9] Judgement of the European Court for Human Rights, dated 3 November 2009, Case Suljagić v Bosnia and Herzegovina, application No. 27912/02.

[10] Judgement of the European Court for Human Rights, dated 3 November 2009, Case Suljagić v Bosnia and Herzegovina, application No. 27912/02.

[11] Article 15, paragraph 4 of the Decision on Managing the Risk of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing („Official Gazette of the Republic of Srpska”, no.: 22/24 and „Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina”, no.: 79/24) 

[12] „Official Gazette of the Republic of Srpska”, NoS. 21/92 – consolidated text, 28/94, 8/96, 13/96, 15/96, 16/96, 21/96, 21/02, 26/02, 30/02, 31/02, 69/02, 31/03, 98/03, 115/05 and 117/05.

By Djordje Dimitrijevic, Counsel, Dimitrijevic & Partners

Former iQR Asset Management Partner and Head of Legal and Compliance Dino Aganovic, Wiener Osiguranje Vienna Insurance Group Head Of Legal and Secretary Davor Majstorovic, and MTEL in-house counsel Vladimir Bjekic have joined forces to launch AMB Legal Group in Bosnia & Herzegovina.

Before setting up the AMB Legal Group, Aganovic was with iQR Asset Management as Partner and Head of Legal and Compliance between 2021 and 2023 and as CEO between 2023 and 2024. Earlier, he was the Head of Legal and Compliance at Heta Asset Resolution between 2015 and 2021, and, earlier still, he was with Hypo Alpe-Adria-Leasing as the Director of the Legal team between 2013 and 2014 as well as a Member of the Supervisory Board between 2014 and 2016. Moreover, he worked for Intermerkur Nova and Mersteel as a Head of Legal and HRM between 2011 and 2013 and was an Attorney Apprentice with Attorney at Law Mirsad Arslanagi between 2009 and 2011.

Majstorovic has been the head of the legal department at Wiener Osiguranje Vienna Insurance Group since 2016 and Secretary of that company between 2018 and 2019. Earlier, he worked for Addiko Bank Bosna & Hercegovina as an Associate for Legal Affairs between 2012 and 2014 as well as a Senior Associate for Legal Affairs between 2014 and 2016. As of 2021, he became Attorney at law, specializing in corporate, finance, and civil law.

Before forming AMB Legal Group, Bjekic spent almost 14 years in-house with MTEL a.d. Banja Luka, a subsidiary of Telekom Serbia a.d. Belgrade, which he joined in 2010 as an apprentice. From 2011 to 2016, he worked as a Chief Associate for Human Resources and Union Relations and, from 2016 to 2024, he worked as a Chief Associate for Contracts and Insurance Affairs. He’s a long-time Arbitrator at the Agency for peaceful settlement of labor disputes Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Originally reported by CEE In-House Matters.

Unlike many neighboring countries, the Trademark Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina explicitly addresses bad faith trademark applications as both relative grounds for refusal and as a basis for contesting a trademark through court proceedings. In other words, trademark applications filed contrary to the principles of good faith and fair dealing can be challenged either through an opposition before the Institute for Intellectual Property or by filing a lawsuit before the competent court. While this dual system theoretically provides two distinct avenues of recourse, practical experience shows that both mechanisms tend to merge into a single, judicially driven process. Below, we analyze the key lessons drawn from recent case law concerning bad faith trademark filings.

Differences Between Administrative and Judicial Procedures

The formal distinction between these two procedures lies in the forum and the outcome. In the administrative opposition or invalidation procedure before the Institute, the case concludes with a decision refusing the bad faith application or invalidating the registered mark. In contrast, judicial proceedings focus on proving the bad faith of the applicant through litigation. If successful, the court issues a judgment recognizing the plaintiff as the rightful owner of the application or registration.

Practical Convergence of the Mechanisms

In practice, however, these two mechanisms often converge. This is because the Institute does not make an independent assessment of bad faith. Instead, it directs the parties to resolve this issue in court. Consequently, regardless of whether the challenge begins administratively or judicially, proving bad faith through court proceedings becomes a requirement in each case.

Criteria for Assessing Bad Faith

The courts assess bad faith based on several key criteria, which are applied consistently. These include:

• Timing of the Application: Whether the trademark application was filed with the intent to infringe upon existing rights, or to block a competitor’s market entry.
  • Similarity or Identity of the Marks: The degree of similarity or identity between the contested trademark and the one used by the plaintiff, which can suggest an attempt to exploit the reputation of an existing brand.
  • Knowledge of Prior Use: Whether the applicant was aware of the earlier use of the mark by the plaintiff or had prior knowledge of the brand’s reputation in the market.
  • General Knowledge of the Industry: The applicant’s familiarity with the industry in which the mark is used, and the length of time the plaintiff has been using the mark in that particular market.
  • Business Relationship Between the Parties: Any direct or indirect business relationships between the applicant and the plaintiff that might indicate an attempt to benefit from the plaintiff’s goodwill or reputation.
  • Other Circumstances of the Specific Case: Any additional circumstances surrounding the application that might suggest bad faith, such as a pattern of filing conflicting trademarks or acting in a manner detrimental to fair competition.

The Logical Inconsistency of the Dual Procedure

Here lies the central issue: despite the dual procedural avenues available, both the opposition and court proceedings require the same evidence and aim to prove the same fact — that the trademark application or registration was filed in bad faith. The key distinction is that if an opposition is filed before the Institute, the Institute will, in most cases, refer the parties to court to determine the bad faith. In other words, the applicant must still go to court to prove bad faith, which can take no less than a year in the first instance.

Given this reality, the question arises: why would a party initiate an opposition procedure and incur additional costs for the administrative process if the only effective solution is to file a lawsuit? After the Institute refers the matter to court, the same result could be achieved — the plaintiff may even have the possibility of having the trademark transferred to them if successful in the litigation. Once the court decision is rendered, the plaintiff can either abandon the trademark or simply withdraw the registration/application, essentially achieving the same result as in the opposition procedure.

Practical Implications and Future Considerations

This creates a logical inconsistency in the practice of local authorities, where parties are effectively required to follow a redundant, time-consuming, and costly path, rather than directly pursuing the court procedure, which offers the same (and often more comprehensive) remedy. This contradiction suggests that the opposition mechanism, while legally provided for, has limited practical value and could be streamlined or reconsidered in future interpretations of the law. As the case law evolves, it is crucial for trademark holders to be aware of this reality and to prepare for court proceedings as the primary and often only effective avenue for addressing bad faith trademark filings.

By Mina Jovanovic Ninkovic, Senior Counsel, ZMP

Former Maric & Co Partner Slaven Dizdar has left the firm to launch Dizdar Law Office in Sarajevo.

Specializing in energy and real estate, prior to establishing his eponymous firm, Dizdar spent over 15 years with Maric & Co. He first joined the firm as an Associate in 2009 and became an Attorney at Law in 2013. He made Partner in 2019.

“The time spent at the largest law firm in Bosnia & Herzegovina has been a source of immense pleasure and pride for me, surpassed only by the excitement about new opportunities and experiences,” commented Dizdar.

Ibrahimovic & Co has advised Bimal on real estate plot acquisition via a special arrangement with the Government of Brcko District, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

According to Ibrahimovic & Co, Bimal plans to “invest more than BAM 5 million in the construction of a highly automated oilseed meal warehouse” on the real estate plot in question.

The Ibrahimovic & Co team included Managing Partner Adi Ibrahimovic and Partner Nadin Kantic.

Creditors can collect their claims not only through court, but also through judicial or out-of-court settlement.

The settlement represents a much more favorable and economical option of the collection of claims, taking into account that court proceedings can possibly last for several years, and generate costs for the parties in the proceedings, such as court fees, representation costs, expert opinions, etc. The advantage of the settlement in relation to the judicial resolution of the dispute is reflected in the fact that the parties themselves reach an agreement on how to resolve their dispute.

According to the Law on Civil Procedure of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the parties can conclude a judicial settlement on the subject of the dispute during the entire procedure, until its final conclusion. If the judicial settlement is concluded after the first-instance judgment has been passed, the acting court will issue a decision establishing that the first-instance judgment is without effect. Judicial settlement can refer to the entire claim or to one of its parts. The content of the judicial settlement is entered into the record and the settlement agreement is considered concluded when both parties sign the record. Such a settlement has the power of an enforceable title. If it was concluded in error or under the influence of coercion or fraud, there is a possibility of contesting the judicial settlement with a lawsuit filed within three months from the date of learning of the reasons for the contestation, and no later than within five years from the date of conclusion of the settlement.

Settlement of claims is most often agreed upon in such a way that the debtor commits to pay the principal debt in instalments in a certain amount of the annuity, while, on the other hand, the creditor waives the right to claim statutory default interest and litigation costs.

The creditor and the debtor can conclude an out-of-court settlement in front of a notary, which settlement can also have the power of an enforceable title. In any case, it is advisable for the creditor to hire a local lawyer, who will perform an assessment of the debtor’s solvency, prepare an appropriate contract and register collateral for the collection of claims. Our law office has been providing legal assistance to creditors in preparation and conclusion of settlement agreements with local debtors, as well as in the successful collection of individual claims of over 900,000 euros.

By Kerim Karabdic, Attorney at Law, Doklestic Repic & Gajin

Recently, there has been a surge in interest in establishing cryptocurrency companies in Bosnia and Herzegovina – spurred by favorable tax conditions – accompanied by increasing investments from the EU and China in renewable energy and infrastructure projects, according to Sajic Law Firm Senior Partner Sanja Djukic.

“Bosnia and Herzegovina is currently seeing a notable uptick in interest from international investors,” Djukic begins. “One of the most significant trends we’ve observed is the increasing number of clients looking to establish cryptocurrency companies, especially in the Republic of Srpska and Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This surge in inquiries reflects a broader growing interest in the region’s potential for cryptocurrency business ventures.”

“Establishing such companies involves navigating several steps and understanding specific requirements,” Djukic continues, highlighting different procedures and necessary documentation for different entities. “Unfortunately, electronic registration isn’t available, and we must prepare all documents manually, go through a notary, and complete several registration steps. While the procedures in the Federation are somewhat similar to those in Srpska, there are some differences in the documentation required,” she adds.

According to Djukic, the trend is mainly driven by the country’s favorable tax legislation and investment climate. “We have numerous clients from EU countries who are considering investing in cryptocurrency businesses here. This emerging trend is driven by the perception of promising returns and the favorable tax environment. With a profit tax rate of just 10%, which is lower than many EU countries, the financial incentives are compelling.” Additionally, she highlights that “the regulatory and operational requirements for firms here are relatively straightforward and less burdensome, making this region an attractive destination for establishing their companies.”

“We are also seeing significant interest from clients in the EU and China who are keen to invest in hydro, wind, solar, and renewable energy projects in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” Djukic continues. “With the country’s abundant natural resources – hydro, wind, solar, and more – there is considerable potential for developing these energy sectors. Many investors are eager to capitalize on this opportunity.” In addition to energy, Djukic highlights that Chinese investors are increasingly active in “Bosnia and Herzegovina’s infrastructure, including railway and roadway projects.”

“I believe these projects can be successfully realized here, as Bosnia and Herzegovina is welcoming to foreign investments,” Djukic states. “This influx is beneficial for both our economy and the country. The establishment of new companies will not only bring fresh capital but also create new employment opportunities. Although the timeline for these projects is uncertain, their implementation will be a significant boost for our country. These large-scale, costly projects will require substantial resources and capacities, further stimulating local development.”

Ibrahimovic & Co has launched a German Desk to support companies wishing to establish, expand, or consolidate their activities in German-speaking countries. The German Desk will be co-led by Partner Nadin Kantic and Attorney at Law Tomislav Tomas.

Kantic is a banking, corporate, tax, customs, and insurance law expert.

Tomas, who has been with the firm for over a year, is a corporate law and renewable energy law specialist. Before joining Ibrahimovic & Co, he spent over five years in-house with Lager, a construction equipment supplier.

According to the firm, its new operation is based on the experience of “collaborating for over fifteen years with experienced partner law firms from German-speaking countries.”

The latest amendments to the Republika Srpska Civil Procedure Law were enacted to ensure procedural improvements, align the rules with the European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights, better regulate cases involving marital and family disputes, and strengthen court rulings.

The law was published in Official Gazette of Republika Srpska No. 027/2024 on 26 March 2024, and will take effect on the eighth day following its publication.

This piece of legislation delivers several key improvements on previous regulations:

• Stipulated jurisdiction for liquidation disputes;
• Stipulated procedure when deciding on the court expert person by the court;
• Judges have been given more flexibility when exceeding time limits for adopting rulings following the end of the main hearing;
• Explanatory statements of rulings setting aside first-instance judgments must now indicate the stage to which the process will be reversed;
• Parties can now communicate with courts by e-mail, with certain restrictions;
• Parties can petition courts to allow audio recording of court hearings;
• Disputed facts in commercial cases can be proven only by means of instruments (documents); and
• Procedures have been introduced to regulate how courts treat provisional measures governed by other laws.

The Republika Srpska Family Law (Official Gazette of Republika Srpska No. 17/23) required the regulation of procedures in marital and family disputes. This meant that amendments to the Civil Procedure Law had to be fast-tracked, with new Chapter XXIXb of the law governing these rules.

The law provides procedures for child custody disputes, cases involving maintenance of contact with children, paternity and maternity cases, and disputes over support for minors or persons subject to parental responsibility extending past their 18th birthday. The amendments include:

• Rules for determining court jurisdiction in family disputes where a child is the claimant;
• Shorter time limits (15 days) for actions in cases initiated by a claim;
• Limited court powers in determining facts that parties have not presented or evidence that parties have not proposed;
• Children are now able to speak their mind freely in court in the presence of a psychologist or other professional, or another person chosen by the child, without the parents being present;
• Contested paternity and maternity cases are now closed to the public;
• First-instance judgments may be appealed within 15 days; and
• Review of final judgments divorcing or annulling a marriage will not be allowed but will always be permitted in family disputes.

The changes are expected to strike a balance between court efficiency and quality of the adjudication process by allowing online delivery of court writs and extending time limits for adopting judgments, allowing children to speak freely in court, permitting audio recordings of cases and closing some marital and family disputes to the public.

By Adnan Sarajlic, Attorney at Law, and Edna Basara, Trainee Lawyer, VP Law firm

Gecic Law and Maric & Co have successfully represented the interests of the Arena Channels Group before the Competition Authority and courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina in an antitrust case.

According to Gecic Law, “the Competition Authority of Bosnia and Herzegovina initiated an investigation, prompted by Telemach, alleging abuse of market dominance by the Arena Channels Group. After a thorough investigation, the Competition Authority dismissed the complaint, [satisfied with the] Arena Channels Group’s equitable engagement within the market. The dispute persisted as the initial claimant challenged the Competition Authority’s decision. However, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina ultimately affirmed Arena Channels Group’s innocence, validating the Competition Authority’s findings.”

Subsequently, the same reports, Telemach “filed a request for review of the Court’s judgment. They asserted that the Court did not adequately consider the allegations made in the lawsuit. The Appellate Division of the Court found the extraordinary legal remedy unfounded. It also upheld its prior ruling, affirming the ACG’s innocence of market abuse allegations.”

The Gecic Law team included Founding Partner Bogdan Gecic, Senior Associate Vuk Lekovic, and Associates Milica Novakovic and Nikola Ivkovic.

The Maric & Co team included Partner Ezmana Turkovic.