Category: North Macedonia

The terms of a loan agreement dictate the circumstances in which a lender can enforce its loan, guarantee, or security interest. In North Macedonia, a lender can usually demand loan acceleration (repayment before a scheduled maturity date) if the borrower defaults under the loan agreement. Security documents state when the lender can enforce the security, usually following a default under the loan agreement or the lender’s demand for repayment when due. A lender can generally demand payment under a guarantee as soon as the borrower fails to pay any guaranteed obligation when due. However, the claim under a guarantee will be limited to the overdue amount. A lender will therefore often need to accelerate the loan before it can make a full claim against a guarantor. Typically, under the finance and the security documents, lenders have the right to accelerate and enforce loans when borrowers become insolvent.

If a borrower is insolvent for more than 30 days, it must commence a restructuring process. The restructuring process involves negotiating a restructuring plan between the borrower and its unsecured creditors to provide more favorable terms for settling the creditors’ claims than they would obtain through insolvency proceedings. Unless they waive their claims, secured creditors are excluded from the restructuring process, since they have the right to settle their claims from their security interests before unsecured creditors.

Once a borrower becomes insolvent, all existing claims against the borrower become due and payable, and any debt recovery proceedings are suspended with immediate effect. A lender’s security interests are not affected by the commencement of insolvency. The security interests are not included in the borrower’s insolvency estate, and secured creditors have the exclusive right to settle their claims from the net sale proceeds of the security interest. If a security interest has not been validly perfected, the creditor will be deemed to be an unsecured creditor, and its claim will be subject to ranking together with the claims of all the unsecured creditors. If two security interests over a particular asset are equal, the first created will have priority. Lenders can enforce their security interest freely within the insolvency proceedings. If lenders wish to participate in the distribution of the insolvency estate together with unsecured creditors, they can do so only if they waive the right to separate settlement of their claims. Also, secured creditors may lose the right to separate settlement of the object of their security interest if they fail to settle their claim from their security interest.

Lenders who have a security interest over a particular group of assets can enforce their security with the assistance of an enforcement agent, a real estate agent, a stock exchange, or a notary public. Typically, lenders and borrowers agree on the method of enforcement and on the entity that will be authorized to enforce the security interest in the security documents. In the absence of these provisions, the lender is free to choose the entity which will enforce the security interest. The lender’s choice of the entity which will enforce the security will dictate the methods of enforcement to be used. For example, a notary public must follow the specific rules for enforcement set out in the Contractual Pledge Act of Republic of North Macedonia of 2003; an enforcement agent must follow the specific rules set out in the Enforcement Act of Republic of North Macedonia of 2016, and a real estate agent must follow its sector-specific rules. In any case, enforcement methods available to lenders include a public auction or a direct sale. If a sale cannot be completed within the enforcement proceedings, the lender has the option to obtain title over the real estate or assets.

Lenders typically choose to enforce a security interest with the assistance of an enforcement agent – a public officer appointed by the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of North Macedonia who has the authority to enforce security interests, in particular through the confiscation, appraisal, and sale of assets. Before commencing the enforcement, lenders must obtain a certificate of enforceability of the security documents from a notary public, certifying the security documents as a deed. To that end, lenders must provide the notary public with a statement indicating that the borrower has defaulted under the loan agreement and a statement on the maturity of the secured claims. Once the certificate of enforceability is obtained, lenders can apply for enforcement to an enforcement agent.

By Ana Stojanovska, Partner, ODI Law

This Article was originally published in Issue 7.11 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

Interview with Zlatko Stojcheski, Head of Corporate and Legal Affairs at A1 Makedonija about his background and best practices.

CEELM: Can you walk us through your career leading up to your current role?

Zlatko: I grew up in a family where law and justice were my daily subjects, since my father was a judge. I also used to visit him in the local court during my childhood, as we lived nearby. I guess that sparked my interest for law and order. Therefore, when the time came, choosing the Law Faculty for my higher education, and after that joining the judiciary branch, was a natural choice for me. So, in 1996 I started volunteering at the Prosecutor’s Office in Skopje, where, after passing the judicial exam, I became an expert associate. After five years, I felt I needed a change, so I decided to continue my career in a completely different area of law.  In December 2001, I joined the only mobile operator in Macedonia at the time – Mobimak –as a legal specialist. I left the company nine years later as Legal Director.

CEELM: How and why did you join A1?

Zlatko: Having spent almost a decade in the telecommunications sector, I didn’t have to think long about joining Vip at the beginning of 2012, after I was offered the position of Head of Legal Affairs. What also drew me to the company were the challenges of working for a company that had a totally different approach and method of functioning. Being the market challenger (Vip operator was then the third mobile operator in the country), it demanded much more innovation and fast and out-of-the box thinking from the team to keep up with the pace of a very competitive market. This was an enormous learning curve for me and I have never regretted joining the company. At that time, A1 Makedonija still didn’t exist, as it was established almost four years later with the completion of one of the biggest mergers in the country.

CEELM: Tell us about A1, and about its legal department. How big is your team, and how is it structured?

Zlatko: The foundations of today’s company were laid down in October 2015 when the merger of two mobile operators – Vip and One, was finalized. Soon after, in May 2016 a third company – Blizoo, previously acquired by Telekom Austria, joined the recently-merged company. After the mergers it was a challenge to unify and harmonize colleagues from all three companies. Each of the teams had different working habits. As time passed, some colleagues left the company and new ones joined. Today, we are a small team of six lawyers in the Legal Department. Our structure is flat and we work very closely with each other. We cooperate well and communicate openly, and we have the perfect mix of seniority and young talent in the team that provides the best potential and ensures optimal output to our internal and external clients. To cut the story short – I’m proud of my team.

CEELM: Was it always your plan to go in-house? If so, why? If not … how did it happen?

Zlatko: As I mentioned earlier, my first love was the judiciary. But, as I matured in my professional life, my youth ideals have slowly faded away and I’ve started to feel that I want a complete change of my professional field of expertise. At that time in 2001, mobile communication services were the next big thing, a modern and promising new industry, so I didn’t hesitate when I was chosen as the best candidate for a legal specialist position in what, at that time, was the only mobile operator in Macedonia. This change has profoundly affected my career, so I have spent almost 19 years in the telecommunications industry, with one short break.

CEELM: What was your biggest single success or greatest achievement with A1 in terms of particular projects or challenges? What one thing are you proudest of?

Zlatko: As the final touch to the forming of the new company identity, the rebranding of the company started in 2019. This project was designed not only to launch the new A1 brand on the Macedonian market, but also to implement a new and unified company culture and to revisit all aspects of our business functions – including technologies, processes, documents and practices – in order to identify and tie up all loose ends. So, the scope of this project was quite complex and multi-disciplinary, touching on all aspects of the company and involving more or less all employees.

It gave me great pleasure to support and see the enthusiasm and positive energy that this project created in action. None of us had any problem providing the extra effort and work longer hours that were required to make things right and on time. The project ended up as a great success. It provided a big positive kick to the company not only on the market, but also internally across the entire company. It transformed A1 Makedonija into a truly modern and dynamic company with a high degree of customer focus that is easily recognized on the market.

I’m very happy that I participated in this exciting project and contributed to its successful finalization.

CEELM: How would you describe your management style? Can you give a practical example of how that manifested itself in the legal department or helped you succeed in your position?

Zlatko: I tend to see myself as first among equals in my team. I’m not a fan of “bossy” type of superiors who draw their authority strictly from their position. I give space and autonomy so my colleagues can really use their potential and creativity at work, but I also provide guidelines and coaching in order to set the basic expectations and standards of work. I support open discussions and share of opinions since for problem solving, a collective mind is always much more effective than a single-minded approach. Also, creating such an atmosphere encourages people to ask for advice and help when needed. To conclude, I deeply believe that mutual trust, respect, and open communication are the building blocks of every team, and it is worth investing the time and effort to create and nurture them.

In practical terms, creating such an atmosphere brings confidence among the team members and a sense of belonging, which increases the cooperation, effectiveness, and productivity of the whole department. 

CEELM: Do you have any personal habits or strategies you employ that may not be common but that really help you succeed in your role? Things you’ve developed yourself over the years that might not be obvious?

Zlatko: I cannot say that I have any unique wisdom to share, but I do have some basic, general rules that I use. Here are a couple of them:

First, have empathy – when having a dispute, try to understand the other side as well. Then put it in perspective, find some compromise, and you might be able to come to an effective and viable solution.

Second, do your homework – when preparing a document, especially a contract, always be clear and precise. Don’t leave uncovered aspects which seem obvious or implied, as they usually turn to be most problematic afterwards. Always lay down all principles and outcomes of cooperation on paper thoroughly, no matter how trivial or obvious they look at the moment. Remember, people only read contracts thoroughly once a problem arises, so having a good and precise text can be a real help in reducing the possibility of a dispute. In the opposite case, a few unclear and murky clauses in a contract can keep your company in court for years.

Finally, it is better to be safe than sorry – finding a way out of a dispute before it gets out of hand is always a much better solution than spending time and money on long and unpredictable court processes. Unless you have a really waterproof case, use court as a last resource. Try to compromise first.

CEELM: What one person would you identify as being most important in mentoring you in your career – and what in particular did you learn from that person?

Zlatko: Soon after my graduation I started volunteering at the District Prosecutor’s Office. I was assigned to Roksanda Krstevska, an experienced prosecutor. She was a great professional, and a very knowledgeable lawyer, but also had that fine sense of justice and fairness that comes with great experience.

I learned a lot from her back then, starting with those practical necessities like attention to details, preciseness, proper analyses and elaboration of facts, but even more, on the importance of integrity, objectiveness, and standing your ground.  What I learned there remained with me throughout my entire career.

CEELM: On the lighter side, what is your favorite book or movie about lawyers or lawyering – and why?

Zlatko: I was still a student when I watched the movie A Few Good Men. The story and dilemmas elaborated there are universal and valid at anytime and anyplace and the acting was excellent. The remarkable scene in the courtroom with Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson and their clash of beliefs– it’s a classic! I would recommend that the young generations of lawyers watch it. Those are two hours well spent.

This Article was originally published in Issue 7.11 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

Despite North Macedonia’s agreement to adopt its current name and its joining of NATO in March 2020, the country’s EU accession process has recently taken a hit, says Polenak Managing Partner Kristijan Polenak. “Notwithstanding recognition received from the entire international community, one EU member country vetoed the start of the negotiations,” says Polenak, referring to Bulgaria’s opposition to moving forward with consideration of North Macedonia’s EU accession. This led to a “decline of internal support for EU membership, caused by disappointment with the inconsistent application of European values. This opposition in early December strengthened the political streams opposing our EU membership.” 

The combination of opposition to EU membership and the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, Polenak says, has “constructed a playing field for anybody who may have an interest in destabilizing North Macedonia and, indirectly, the Western Balkans.” 

“On the home political front,” Polenak continues, “the parliamentary elections held in July 2020 resulted in the continuation of the existing coalition Government. The government majority is thin but stable.”

The existing coalition has exhibited a long period of “legislative inactivity,” Polenak says, “which is not unexpected, given that this was an election year fraught with a pandemic.” Still, that’s not to say there’s nothing happening. In fact, he says, “there are several interesting legislative projects in the pipeline, including amendments to the Law on Civil Procedure and the Law on Bankruptcy, although these are still in the drafting phase.”

Reporting on the country’s economic status, Polenak says that GDP fell 5.9% during the first three quarters of 2020, but he points out that it dropped “14.9% in the second quarter and 3.3% in the third.” He believes that “this shows a normalization and a balancing of economic performance.” The IMF has predicted a 5.5% GDP growth in 2021, although the government of North Macedonia is predicting a lower 4.1% rate. Polenak stresses that it is still “very difficult to make predictions on the short-term recovery, but it seems that the vaccination and tough economic policies will make the government’s prediction the more accurate one.”  

Polenak believes that it is unlikely that businesses will be able to pick up speed in the first half of 2021, but he is confident that the country has “passed the tipping point,” and he says that “my expectation is that the economy will keep the current levels until worldwide efforts to fight the pandemic show results, at which point the newly gained optimism will lead to recovery and growth.”

Finally, looking at recent deals in North Macedonia, Polenak reports that, despite the pandemic, there are “a few worth mentioning, such as the announced accession of Ohridska Banka in Sparkasse Bank Macedonia (which will result in the latter becoming one of the top four systemic banks in the country), the announced privatization of the post office, the greenfield investment efforts of Magna Mirrors, [and] a couple of wind farm projects, all of which may — and I believe will — affect their respective industry sectors and improve the economic performance of the country.”

If certain statutory conditions are fulfilled, companies obliged to pay the Macedonian Corporate Income Tax (CIT) should submit reports for their 2019 transactions with related parties to the Public Revenue Office before September 30, 2020. The 2019 financial year is the first for which CIT payers are obliged to file such reports, according to the CIT Law.

For many years, the Macedonian authorities kept the transfer pricing regime simple and under-regulated. Thus, before the CIT Law was amended in December 2018, it stipulated that only two methods were acceptable for determining the potential difference between the transfer price and the price determined under the arm’s length principle in transactions between related parties: the comparable uncontrolled price (CUP) method and the cost-plus method.

This approach was not in line with methods presented in the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations. Additionally, before the law was amended in 2018, CIT payers were only required to present information and analyses for the execution of transactions between related parties according to the arm’s length principle when requested to do so by the Public Revenue Office.

However, the amendments to the CIT Law change the course of transfer pricing rules significantly. In particular, the scope of the categories of persons/entities which are considered “related” for tax purposes has been extended, immediately increasing the number of CIT payers subject to the transfer pricing provisions. The current definition stipulates that two persons/entities will be treated as related parties for transfer pricing purposes if there is an ownership, managerial, personal, financial, organizational, or business relationship between them which fulfills the statutory criteria.

Additionally, the Macedonian legislator decided to extend the number of available methods for determining the prices at arm’s length in transactions between related parties. Related parties now can use the CUP method, the cost-plus method, the resale price method, the transactional net margin method, the profit split method, or any other method (in case the prior five methods are inapplicable for some reason). This amendment improved the position of taxpayers needing to choose an appropriate method because the applicability of any method is limited by the type of transaction and the availability of financial information for comparable independent companies.

The updated transfer pricing legislation may potentially impose additional obligations on a large number of CIT payers, in the process increasing their compliance expenses. Therefore, the Macedonian legislator decided to limit the obligations for reporting of transactions with related parties only to CIT payers with a total annual income higher than MKD 60 million (approximately EUR 975,600). This reporting should have been completed together with submission of the annual CIT return for the prior year (thus, no later than March 15 for this current year). 

However, stakeholders objected to many aspects of the new obligations, primarily that the deadline for their reports is too short to allow the preparation of documentation for transactions with related parties. As a result, the legislator adopted new amendments to the CIT Law in December 2019, extending the deadline for submitting their reports until September 30 of the current year for the reports drafted for the previous year, and increasing the threshold for the reporting so that only CIT payers with annual income higher than MKD 300 million (approximately EUR 4.9 million) will be subject to them.

Additionally, the legislator exempted transactions between related parties that are both tax residents of North Macedonia from reporting. Hence, only cross-border transactions are affected by the transfer pricing provisions.

The 2019 amendments also divided CIT payers with Reporting Obligations into two groups. The first group consists of taxpayers whose annual transactions with related parties do not exceed MKD 10 million (approximately EUR 162,600). These taxpayers should submit a shortened report for transactions with related parties. The second group includes the taxpayers whose turnover with related parties exceeds that threshold, who are now obliged to submit a detailed report for transactions with related parties, including data about multinational enterprises, data about the taxpayer, and appendices.

The recent amendments to the CIT Law represent a significant development of the local transfer pricing legislation. However, considering the current tax measures endorsed by the OECD and EU, many opportunities for Macedonian authorities to improve the country’s tax system remain.

By Aleksandar Josimovski, Head of Tax, CMS North Macedonia

This Article was originally published in Issue 7.9 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

In merger control, the standstill obligation requires that the parties refrain from implementing a concentration before obtaining the required merger clearance. This duty represents a cornerstone of many merger control regimes and is intended to protect the structure of the market and the consumers from any damage that could result from a transaction that had not been properly examined and could turn out to be anti-competitive.

The Macedonian Law on Protection of Competition (the “Law”) also prohibits parties from implementing a concentration before receiving a green light from the Macedonian National Competition Authority.

The standstill obligation is limited to the boundaries of the very concept of a concentration, meaning that refraining from implementing a transaction means refraining from acquiring control over the target undertaking. Any other transaction that contributes to the implementation of a concentration or, following the preliminary ruling of the European Court of Justice in Ernst & Young, which represents a direct functional link to the implementation of a concentration and contributes, in whole or in part, in fact or in law, to a change of control over the target undertaking can constitute gun-jumping. 

Filing Thresholds

When discussing gun-jumping, it is also important to consider what triggers the notification requirement. The Law sets rather low merger filing thresholds, which can be triggered even in cases where neither of the parties is active in North Macedonia (i.e., in foreign-to-foreign deals); one party having an affiliated company registered in North Macedonia can be enough to trigger a duty to file. Even though the Law formally recognizes the domestic effect doctrine, according to which acts undertaken abroad fall within the scope of the Law only if they produce effects on the local territory, the NCA’s practice suggests that this provision of the Law is not observed and the only criterion when determining whether a duty to notify the NCA that a transaction exists remains the merger filing thresholds.

Enforcement

The track record of the National Competition Authority on gun-jumping consists of three cases involving the issuance of fines. The first case sheds some light on the issue at the moment of implementation, and the other cases are relevant to the way foreign-to-foreign deals are handled.

The first gun-jumping case occurred in 2007, when the NCA fined Top Investment Group for acquiring joint control over Zegin without notifying it of the transaction or obtaining merger clearance. The NCA had a clear-cut case here, but it nevertheless examined in detail how and when control was acquired and found that the moment of implementation occurred not when Top Investment Group obtained ownership of a share in Zegin, but when it gained the effective right to block strategic decisions at Zegin.

The other two cases involve Slovenia Broadband and United Media, both members of the Mid Europa Partners Group at the time of the acquisitions in question. The acquirers failed to notify the NCA of transactions involving foreign targets with either negligible or no turnover in North Macedonia. Still, due to the rather low merger filing thresholds prescribed by the Law, the acquirers managed to trigger the filing duty on their own. Following late merger notifications at the end of 2013, the NCA fined Slovenia Broadband and United Media for their failure to notify it of the transactions and for implementing them before obtaining merger clearance, effectively confirming that the NCA is unlikely to consider the domestic effects doctrine for foreign to foreign transactions. The NCA took as mitigating factors the fact that the concentrations did not give rise to any competition concerns and that the parties voluntarily reported the non-notified concentrations and cooperated with the NCA during its proceedings.

Conclusions

The NCA’s practice in gun-jumping cases implies that undertakings cannot rely on a domestic effects defense in merger control cases. All three cases, in general, serve as evidence of a very formalistic and strict approach by the NCA, which poses an increased risk of enforcement actions against companies that fail to notify it of their acquisitions and respect the North Macedonian waiting period, even in situations that involve targets with no activities or turnover in North Macedonia.

By Rasko Radovanovic, Partner, and Dusica Bojkovska, Associate, CMS

This Article was originally published in Issue 7.8 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

Like many countries in the region, 2020 in North Macedonia’s was an election year, and the recent formation of its new government, according to CMS Partner Marija Filipovska, “hopefully heralds a bit more stable of a period to come.” According to her, “the newly elected government is strongly pro-EU and is also very vocal in favoring Western investment” which she believes could “create a stable environment in which FDI can flow stronger if (the government) is doing their job.”

Filipovska says that the predictions for negative growth in the country made by the World Bank, commonly put at around 4.1%, may be “a bit too optimistic,” as the North Macedonian government has projected “a 4.4% drop.” She says, “I’m afraid we will have to wait until 2021 to see what will happen – most predictions could be subject to rapid change depending on the course of the pandemic.” She adds that, although North Macedonia is not highly dependent on specific markets (as Greece or Croatia are dependent on tourism, for example), the economic impact of the pandemic is obvious. She also reports that in an effort to “hedge its bets” the new government has recently started “sending out messages of being open to different kinds of investments, from different regions – including China and Asia.” According to her, “it will be most interesting to see if the government continues to pursue this angle in the future, as such markets appear to be strong and have the tendency to grow.”

Filipovska reports that there has been little new legislation recently beyond that related to the COVID-19 crisis. “We have had an update to our Data Protection Act,” she says, “in an effort to emulate the GDPR, as well as some further fine-tuning to the renewable energy framework – but most of the changes and updates have either stopped or have severely slowed down due to the crisis.” Still, she says, a new Labor Law is in the pipeline, although it has “dragged on in certain legislative procedures far more than needed – likely due to the coronavirus as well.” 

Filipovska says that the past few years have seen more of ”traditional investments and transactions.” According to her, “we are closely following the banking system, as the EBRD has expressed the need for the consolidation of the banking market in their Transaction Report for 2018/2019.”

Finally, Filipovska says that the North Macedonian market as a whole has “changed a little bit, in terms of trends over the last year,” and she notes that “several large, global IT companies are expressing their interest in local software/IT companies and exploring the local IT market.” According to her, “this trend has not been very strong, but it has been remarkably consistent, even with (or helped by) the pandemic.” This is good news, she believed. “We at CMS are very excited about this trend, as we have regionally developing teams, policies and software for full support of IT companies and startups.” 

In addition, she says, there has been an increased interest in investing in and developing solar and wind energy. “North Macedonia is one of the countries in Europe that has the most sunshine hours per year and is also positioned geographically in such a way that it could use wind-power to a far greater extent than it does,” she notes. “I’m very pleased to see that more interest has been expressed by foreign investors in this regard.”

The adoption of the new Law on Energy of North Macedonia in 2018 established the foundations for stability, competitiveness, and economic functionality of the energy sector. In addition, the Energy Law declared the promotion of renewable energy sources and encouraging energy efficiency a priority. This, in a short time, has contributed to increased investment in the field of renewables.

In fact, since the adoption of the Energy Law, several procedures for construction of photovoltaic power plants have been realized, including: i) the construction of 35 MW photovoltaic power plants on state land; ii) the construction of a 10 MW photovoltaic plant in TPP Oslomej; and iii) the construction of a photovoltaic power plant of 100 MW in the former TEC Oslomej coal mine. With all these investments, as well as the planned 20 MW photovoltaic power plant in REK Bitola, installed capacity of 200 MV is expected, which is a strategic priority of North Macedonia. These investments confirm the country’s commitment to invest in renewables and attract additional interested investors in this area.

To additionally improve the conditions for large investments in general, and to attract foreign and domestic capital, the Parliament of the North Macedonia in January this year adopted the Law on Strategic Investments of North Macedonia (SIL). The SIL is designed to encourage, attract, and create conditions for conducting strategic investments, and to offer new opportunities for potential investors.

Pursuant to the SIL, on May 2, 2020 the Government of N. Macedonia announced a public call for submission of requests to determin the status of a strategic investment project (the “Public Call”). As part of the call, the Government stipulated the criteria and areas for obtaining the status of a strategic project in N. Macedonia.

Namely, SIL defines a strategic investment project as an investment of: (i) at least EUR 100 million on the territory of at least two or more municipalities; (ii) at least EUR 50 million in municipalities with a seat in a city, municipalities in the City of Skopje, and the City of Skopje; and (iii) at least EUR 30 million in municipalities with a seat in a village.

As an exception, strategic investment projects (SIP) can also be those that are implemented under inter-state agreements; those implemented and funded in co-operation with the European Union or the Ministerial Council of the Energy Community, or those funded by international financial institutions where the investor is a state administration body.

According to the SIL and the Public Call, execution of a SIP is a matter of public interest. Hence, the SIP: (i) must comply with the environmental standards; (ii) must not be contrary to the Constitution of North Macedonia and ratified international treaties; (iii) must fall within the strategic priorities of the Government of North Macedonia.

Projects in the field of energy with infrastructure are among the priority areas covered by this Public Call. As a result, potential investors in the field of energy get an additional opportunity for investment that would be set as a SIP by the Government of N. Macedonia.

The final deadline for submission of the application for SIP is January 31, 2021, and the Public Call stipulates the documentation and approvals which must accompany it. The Commission for SIP founded by the Government is authorized by law to evaluate and make final decisions on applications. Briefly, once the Government grants a project this status, it must propose a draft law for the implementation of the SIP to the Parliament of North Macedonia. After the Parliament adopts the law, the Government will conclude an agreement with the strategic investor.

The main purpose of the SIL and the Public Call is to encourage, attract, and create conditions for the implementation of strategic investments in North Macedonia, which in general is expected to result in economic growth, employment, and application of new technologies and innovations.

With this opportunity, potential investors in renewables could initiate a large investment cycle in the country. This could have a positive impact not just on the energy sector, but on the country’s competitive advantages, economic growth, and on the living conditions of citizens of N. Macedonia in general.

By Marija Filipovska, Partner, and Dusan Bosiljanov, Attorney at Law, CMS Skopje

This Article was originally published in Issue 7.6 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

ODI has helped Nova Ljubljanska Banka obtain Macedonian merger clearance for the acquisition of 83.23% of the ordinary shareholding in Komercijalna Banka a.d. Beograd.

ODI also advised NLB on the acquisition itself, which was announced in March of 2020. (As reported by CEE Legal Matters on March 5, 2020).

ODI‘s team on the merger clearance process included Partners Gjorgji Georgievski and Ana Stojanovska and Associates Marija Serafimovska and Ema Tasevska.

ODI Law has helped Exor N.V. obtain Macedonian merger clearance for its EUR 102.4 million acquisition of GEDi Gruppo Editoriale S.p.A. from CIR SpA.

According to ODI, “in December 2019, Exor agreed to buy a 43.78% controlling stake in GEDi Gruppo Editoriale S.p.A., which publishes prominent Italian daily newspapers La Repubblica and La Stampa, from CIR S.p.A. for EUR 102.4 million. Exor, which is the controlling shareholder in Fiat Chrysler and Ferrari, also owns 43.4% of The Economist. Exor plans to apply its media sector experience to help GEDI grow and accelerate a technological and structural transformation of the publisher.”

ODI‘s team included Partner Gjorgji Georgievski and Associates Marija Serafimovska and Ema Tasevska.

ODI Law has advised FLO Magazacilik ve Pazarlama A.S on the opening of stores in Skopje and Tetovo. 

According to ODI, FLO Magazacilik is the largest shoe retailer in Turkey, and it “owns several shoe brands ,such as Kinetix, Lumberjack, and Polaris and cooperates with global shoe brands such as Adidas, Nike, Puma, and others.”

ODI’s team included Partners Gjorgji Georgievski and Ana Stojanovska and Associates Kristina Tomashevska-Blazevska, Marija Serafimovska, and Ema Tasevska.