Category: Serbia

ICT system operators of special importance, i.e. companies operating within the activities specified in the Law on Information Security, are obliged to establish and maintain an adequate ICT system, as well as to review the compliance of applied protection measures with the Law on Information Security, and to make a report on the matter.

These obligations should be done by the operators once per year.

ICT system is a technological-organizational unit which includes:

(1) electronic communication networks in the sense of the law governing electronic communications,

(2) devices or groups of interconnected devices, such that within the device, or at least one of the group devices, performs automatic data processing using a computer program,

(3) data that is managed, stored, processed, searched or transmitted using an electronic communications network or devices defined above, for the purpose of their operation, use, protection or maintenance,

(4) organizational structure through which the ICT system is managed;

(5) all types of system and application software and software development tools. 

With the latest amendments to the Law on Information Security, all ICT system operators of special importance have the obligation to register in the records kept by the competent Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Telecommunications.

ICT systems of special importance are the systems used:

A) in performing tasks in government bodies:

In practice, business entities face the dilemma of who has the obligation to record ICT systems of special importance.

This system belongs to the authorities, regardless of who installed the system and who

is in charge of its maintenance, and the authorities, as Operators of the ICT system, are obliged to record it.

Therefore, in terms of the Law on Information Security, all obligations on this basis apply to system operators, and the Operator can be a legal entity, authority or organizational unit of the authority, that uses the ICT system in the performance of its activities.

 The Operator, among other things, has an obligation to ensure that persons who use the ICT system, i.e. manage the ICT system, are trained for jobs that work and understand their responsibilities. Also, Article 9 of the Law prescribes that the Operator of an ICT system may entrust activities related to the ICT system to third parties (system maintenance, among other things), in which case the Operator is obliged to contractually regulate the relationship with those persons. But these are only third parties to whom certain activities related to the system are entrusted, not the system operators.

B) for the processing of special types of personal data, in terms of the law governing the protection of personal data:

 According to the legal definition, it is necessary for a company to cumulatively meet three conditions:

1. to use the ICT system;
2. to use this system for data processing – “processing” means any collection, storage, inspection and data use, among other things;
3. that the processing in the ICT system refers to special types of personal data, which are, pursuant to Art. 17. of the Law on Personal Data Protection, the following: racial or ethnic origin, political opinion, religious or philosophical beliefs or trade union membership, as well as processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of unique identification, health or sexual life data, as well as data on sexual orientation of an individual.

If all 3 conditions are met, then this system has acquired the character of an ICT system of special importance, and the obligation to record it in terms of Art. 6a of the Law on this basis exists.

C) In legal entities and institutions established by the Republic of Serbia, an autonomous province or a unit of local self-government for performing activities.

D) in performing activities of general interest and other activities in the following areas:

(1) energy:

• production, transmission and distribution of electricity;
• coal production and processing;
• exploration, production, refining, transport and distribution of oil and trade in oil and oil derivatives;
• exploration, production, processing, transport and distribution of natural and liquefied gas;

(2) traffic:

• railway, postal, water and air transport;

(3) health:

• health protection 

(4) banking and financial markets:

• affairs of financial institutions;
• keeping a register of data on liabilities of individuals and legal entities to financial institutions;
• management activities, i.e. performing activities related to the functioning of the regulated market;

(5) digital infrastructure:

• exchange of internet traffic;
• management of the national internet domain registry and online naming system (DNS systems);

(6) goods of general interest:

• use, management, protection and improvement of goods of general interest (waters, roads, mineral resources, forests, navigable rivers, lakes, shores, spas, wildlife, protected areas);

(7) information society services:

• information society services;

(8) other areas:

• electronic communications;
• publishing the official gazette of the Republic of Serbia;
• management of nuclear facilities;
• production, trade and transport of weapons and military equipment;
• waste management;
• communal activities;
• production and supply of chemicals;

In accordance with the information published on the website of the Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Telecommunications (https://mtt.gov.rs/evidencijaiktsistema/), the registration in the Records kept by the competent Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Telecommunications must be made by 12 May, 2020.

The Law on Information Security prescribes that the Operator of an ICT system of special importance, who does not make an entry in the records, shall be fined.

The fine for this misdemeanour is prescribed in the legal range of approx. EUR 400 to EUR 17.000 for the ICT System of special importance Operator, and from approx. EUR 40 to EUR 400 for the responsible person in the ICT system of special importance Operator.

By Ivana Cvetkovic Diafa, Senior Associate, and Ela Trisic, Associate, Stojkovic Attorneys

After the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia rendered the decision to revoke the state of emergency on 6 May 2020, both administrative authorities and businesses have gradually started to return to their regular activities.

However, even though the epidemic of COVID19 is abating, increased precautionary measures are still present both in the people’s everyday behavior and in rules rendered by the competent authorities.

In light of the recent events, the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia has passed the Law on Amendments and Modifications of the Law on Protection of People from Infectious Diseases. The most important change in the law concerns the increased minimum fines for both natural and legal persons for misdemeanors prescribed in this law. The lawmaker’s rationale behind the increased fines is the misdemeanor courts’ practice to impose minimal fines on the offenders, which is believed not to be sufficiently contributing to abiding the precautionary measures during the epidemic.

For these reasons, the minimum fine for both legal and natural persons has been increased from RSD 30,000 to RSD 50,000, whereas the maximum fines remain RSD 500,000 and RSD 150,000 for legal and natural persons respectively. Therefore, a legal entity can be fined in the said amount if it, exampli causa, fails to conduct or enable disinfection in accordance with the law or organizes business trips to the country in which there are diseases that represent a threat to international health. In addition to the legal entity itself, fine for the same misdemeanor is also imposed on the responsible person within the legal entity, whereas the fine range for the responsible person is between RSD 50,000 and RSD 150,000

Additionally to the acts that were already qualified as a misdemeanor, some of which are listed above, the amendments introduced one new violation – failure to act in accordance with the regulations, decisions, and orders that contain measures for the protection of people from infectious diseases, and that is rendered by the competent authorities in accordance with the Law on Protection of People from Infectious Diseases. This blanket provision leaves the possibility to specify the particulars of the violation in the act rendered by the executive authority, therefore allowing a more efficient response to the threat for people’s health.

By Jelena Milinovic, Partner, and Ivana Petkovic, Senior Associate, JPM Jankovic Popovic Mitic

“Well, the Parliament was shut down for almost two months,“ says Darija Ognjenovic, Partner at Prica & Partners in Belgrade. “Given that fact, it is clear why there have been no legislative changes of note other than those related directly to the COVID-19 crisis, instituting measures to protect public health and the economy.“

She notes that most COVID-19 public health-related measures dealing with the crisis were similar to those enacted in other countries, including a curfew, the mandatory use of personal protection equipment, maintaining social distancing, and so on. “As for the economic stimulus part,“ she says, “there has been a moratorium on the payment of social contributions and taxes on salaries as well as credit repayments for a three-month period, and there have been tax breaks.“

Additionally, legislative and administrative-proceeding deadlines have “either been frozen or extended, and most regulatory bodies are working under a special regime in which no parties are allowed to be present.“ Finding a silver lining where she can, Ognjenovic believes that the Serbian courts’ caseloads are already so overwhelming that the deadline extensions are unlikely to have a noticeably adverse effect after the crisis passes. “The court system in Serbia is rather slow as it is,“ she says, “so these two months will not have a huge effect on it.“ And indeed, the country slowly started reopening on May 11, with courts resuming their regular work.

“As for the economic impact, the country’s SMEs will suffer huge consequences,“ Ognjenovic says. “While enterprise players have systems that are used to having high turnover and have a structure that’s more easily adjustable to a crisis such as this, SMEs will need some time to come back around.“ She says that hospitality-orientated businesses such as hotels and restaurants have been “gutted“ and have had to lay off a lot of people, unable “to pay them even the minimum wage.“

Sighing, Ognjenovic says that the measures the government put in place “are what they are.“ According to her, “some of them are quite good, especially when it comes to protecting public health, but others are a simple reflection of the fact that the country is not very liquid.“ She feels that the rather quick reopening — “so that the country doesn’t go bankrupt“ — reflects this as well. Finally, she says, “also, this quick ’return to normal’ also has political connotations — we’re due for parliamentary elections in June, postponed from April – and any more prolonging on this front would have put more pressure on the government.“

On 15 March 2020, the Government of the Republic of Serbia declared a state of emergency due to the pandemic of the infectious disease COVID – 2019, which resulted in the closure of borders and a ban on movement.

The temporary ban on entering the country did not apply to Serbian citizens and foreign citizens who have been granted temporary residence or permanent residence in the Republic of Serbia.

After rescinding the state of emergency, the Serbian Government, on 14 May 2020, adopted the Amendment to the Decision on the Protocol of Entry of Citizens of the Republic of Serbia into the Country, in accordance with the epidemiological situation and protection of the population from the infectious disease COVID-19.

According to the aforementioned protocol, citizens of the Republic of Serbia can enter the country without the obligation of isolation, if they have a negative PCR test for COVID-19 not older than 72 hours. If a citizen of Serbia enters the country without a test, he/she is obliged to self-isolate for 14 days.

The changes to the decision bring the possibility for the citizens of the Republic of Serbia to perform testing in one of the referenced laboratories in the country during the period of self-isolation and, if tested negative, to terminate the self-isolation prior to statutory deadline.

Foreign citizens without temporary or permanent residence may enter the territory of the Republic of Serbia under two conditions:

• Holding record on negative PRC test not older than 72 hours; and
• Permit issued by a commission consisting of representatives of the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Interior.

The State Crisis Staff for the Protection of Public Health from infectious diseases COVID-19, recommended to the Government of the Republic of Serbia to, starting from 1 June 2020, fully open the borders for persons coming from four neighbouring countries – Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Northern Macedonia.

By Stojkovic Attorneys

On 6 May 2020, the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia rendered the decision to revoke the state of emergency which has been proclaimed on 15 March 2020 due to the epidemic of COVID19.

Following this decision, on 7 May 2020 the High Court Counsel of the Republic of Serbia rendered the conclusion in which it stated that the conditions for normal functioning of the courts are met, as well as that the courts will start operating regularly starting from 11 May 2020.

However, due to the still lasting epidemic of COVID19 the High Court Counsel also prescribed the preventive measures for both the employees in the justice system as well as the parties, attorneys, and other persons approaching the court, which include disinfection, the minimum distance between persons and protective equipment.

Additionally to the already existing security measures (metal detector scanners), upon entering the court visitors will also have to undertake disinfection, which includes disinfection of hands and footwear. Further, they are obliged to wear protective equipment – face mask and gloves. If a person refuses to undergo disinfection or does not wear a face mask, he/she will not be allowed to enter the court building. Finally, all persons are obliged to present an identification document and state the reason for their visit to the reception desk.

All persons are obliged to keep a distance of a minimum 150cm from each other while waiting in line to enter the court and in the court building itself.

The minimum distance of 150cm must be also maintained in the courtrooms during trials. Therefore, persons who wish to attend the trial will be allowed to attend the trial in accordance with the necessity of their presence. The priority will be given to the accused, his defense attorney, and other persons who have been summoned by the court, whereas other persons will not be allowed to attend the trial if the safe distance cannot be maintained.

The prescribed measures will be in force until the end of the epidemic of COVID19.

By JPM Jankovic Popovic Mitic

The global pandemic caused by Covid-19 disease has caused huge losses to the tourism industry.

The Minister in charge of Trade, Tourism and Telecommunications in Serbia said that even though there is no sufficient official data yet, the damage to tourism industry for the first five months, caused by the coronavirus crisis, was expected to amount to approximately EUR 300 M.

In addition to travel agencies, about 500,000 citizens who paid for their travel arrangements by 15 March 2020 are at a disadvantage. The possibility of refunds and enjoying tourist arrangements on different dates were questioned and addressed.

The National Association of Travel Agencies of Serbia JUTA (YUTA) has recently issued a statement that a model of value vouchers shall replace refunds and should serve as compensation for unused travel arrangements, fully or partly, paid by the Serbian citizens.

On the other hand, the Serbian Government passed the Regulation on offering replacement travels for tourist travels that were cancelled or not realized due to COVID-19 disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus (“Regulation”), which entered into force on 30 April 2020.

GENERAL REGIME

Prior to the enactment of the Regulation, except from the Consumer Protection Law warranties (about which we wrote earlier), the Law on Contracts and Torts also entitles passengers to withdraw from the contract at any time:

• but within a reasonable time before the start of the trip, which is set according to the type of arrangement in each case individually, in which case the travel organizer is only entitled to reimbursement of the administrative costs;
• but in case of untimely cancellation of the contract, the organizer may demand from the passenger compensation in a certain percentage of the agreed price, which is determined in proportion to the period remaining until the start of the tourist trip and which must be economically justified.

SPECIAL REGIME

On the other hand, the Regulation enables travel agencies to offer passengers a replacement trip for an unrealized tourist trip that was paid in full or in part by 15 March 2020, regardless of the period of realization, and which was cancelled or unrealized during the state of emergency or later, due to the circumstances caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus-induced COVID-19 disease.

The Regulation does not prescribe the deadline within which travel agencies should submit offers to passengers, as well as the obligation of travel agencies to make such offers at all.

Mandatory elements of the offer

If the travel agency makes an offer for the use of a replacement trip, the offer must contain the name and surname of the passenger, the amount, date of issue, the period of validity of the offer, as well as information that a travel guarantee is provided for the replacement trip. An offer for a replacement trip may not be lower in value than the sale price or the amount paid by the passenger for the unrealized trip.

This offer is given by the travel agency, as a travel organizer, to the passenger, for the unrealized trip, regardless of whether the trip was purchased from a travel organizer (travel agency) or from an intermediary. Technically, the offer should be handed to the traveller by the travel organizer or intermediary, in written form directly or electronically.

The possibility of issuing an offer for a replacement trip, under the conditions of this Regulation, also applies to short trips and excursions.

If the passenger accepts the offer

If the passenger decides to accept the offer of the travel agency before the realization of the replacement trip, a new contract on organizing the trip is concluded, with the cancellation of the previous one. The new contract on the replacement trip contains, among other things, the number of issued travel guarantee in case of an insolvency and for damage compensation.

If the replacement trip is realized at another destination, before concluding a new contract on organizing the trip, the travel organizer, i.e. the intermediary in the sale of the tourist trip should obtain the written consent of the passenger.

Until when can a replacement trip be used?

The passenger can use the replacement trip for a period of one year from the day of delivery of the offer, and no later than 31 December 2021.

If the passenger does not accept the offer

If the traveller decides not to accept the offer, the travel agency is obliged to refund the paid funds within 14 days from the expiration of the deadline for the realization of the replacement trip (31 December 2021), i.e. by January 14, 2022.

This, in other words, means that passengers will have to wait for a refund which is supposed to be paid back without any increase, such as interest, for instance.

Potential issues

The Regulation intends to protect travel agencies that are, undoubtedly, in severe crisis.

On legal side, the basis of the Regulation in relation to the Law on Tourism is unclear, given that the Regulation only states that it was adopted “in connection with the Law on Tourism”.

If tested, this secondary piece of legislation may fail to withstand the compliance check due to latent violations of constitutional warranties and legal principles.

But, it remains to be seen will disagreeing passengers insist on refunds or remain patient for more than year and half form now.

Only time will tell.

By Stojkovic Attorneys

The Serbian Parliament terminated the state of emergency on 6 May 2020, following the flattening of the epidemic curve and the creation of conditions for the gradual attainment of collective immunity. Since the introduction of the state of emergency, the Serbian Government issued 44 regulations that were aimed at combating the COVID-19 crisis, including the health, safety, and economic measures, as well as to maintain the functioning of the judicial system and administrative authorities.

As a reminder, the statutory deadlines for submissions before the Competition Commission during the state of emergency were still applicable, however, the parties could not have been fined for missing the deadline during this extraordinary situation.

Following the termination of the state of emergency, the deadlines applicable for the parties before the Serbian Competition Commission are running as usual, meaning that the parties may be sanctioned in case they omit the deadlines.

Nevertheless, on 8 May 2020, the Serbian Competition Commission issued a statement with an interpretation that the merger control deadlines which expired during the state of emergency shall be considered expired 30 days after the state of emergency, i.e. on 5 June 2020. Such an interpretation does not seem to be in line with explicit provision stipulated under the previous state-of-emergency regulation, nevertheless, the Commission seemed to have adopted a more lenient approach in relation to merger filing deadlines. For the purpose of full legal certainty, however, it is advisable that the parties consult lawyers in advance of their merger filing plans.

The letters issued by the Competition Commission during the state of emergency shall be deemed delivered to the interested parties within 15 days after the termination of the state of emergency, and this applies only in relation to the authority’s letters containing deadlines which cannot be extended.

On the other hand, the statutory deadlines concerning the termination/finalization of the pending proceedings before the Competition Commission which elapsed during the state of emergency will be deemed to have elapsed after 30 days as of the termination of the state of emergency, i.e. on 5 June 2020.

By Bojan Vuckovic, Partner, independent Attorney at Law in cooperation with Karanovic & Partners

The Alternative Investment Funds Act (“Act”) came into force on 19 October 2019 and applies as of 20 April 2020, except certain provisions whose application is postponed. Additionally, the Securities Commission adopted 7 bylaws implementing the Act, which came into force on 5 May 2020.

Serbian legislation distinguishes two types of collective investment vehicles: undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) and collective investment institutions that do not qualify as UCITS, i.e. alternative investment funds (“AIFs”).

Simply speaking, a term AIF refers to an investment which is different from conventional investment avenues such as stocks, debt securities, etc. The Act defines AIF as an investment fund that raises capital from a number of investors, intending to invest it under a defined investment policy for the benefit of those investors, which does not require authorization pursuant to the act governing open-ended investment funds subject to public offering (i.e. UCITS).

Open-ended and Closed-ended AIFs

The Act distinguishes open-ended and closed-ended AIFs. Open-ended AIF can be organized only as an AIF which does not have separate legal personality (it represents a separate set of assets), while closed-ended AIF may be established as AIF which has a legal personality (joint-stock company or limited liability company), as an AIF which does not have separate legal personality or as an AIF which has legal personality with internal management. However, the main difference between these AIFs is that holder of units of an open-ended AIF may request at any time from AIF to repurchase or redeem its units, while holders of units/shares of a closed-ended AIF do not have such right.

Types of AIFs

According to the Act, there are two main types of AIFs depending on a manner of raising capital: public offering AIFs and private placement AIFs, either of which may be organized or established as open-ended or closed-ended AIF.

1. Public Offering AIFs

The Act sets up a general rule that units/shares of AIFs should not be available to small investors (retail investors), but only to so-called semi-professional and professional investors. However, there is one exception from this rule: units/shares of public offering AIFs may be available to small investors. However, the application of provisions defining offering of units/shares to small investors is postponed until 01 January 2021.

Open-ended public offering AIFs are similar to UCITS and therefore the Act does not regulate the offering of shares of such AIFs in detaile but refers to the act which regulates UCITS. On the other hand, the Act defines that shares of a closed-ended AIF may be offered publically if its shares are listed on a regulated market. Additionally, the Act sets up limitations for public offering AIFs’ assets investments and its exposure towards specific assets.

2. Private placement AIFs

According to the Act, private placement AIF may be organized/established as general AIF or as one of the special types of AIFs. The Act distinguishes several special types of private placement AIF, depending on assets into which AIFs’ property is invested: 

• Private equity – AIF that invests directly in companies with the aim of improvement of those companies, with the eventual goal of selling the company for a profit. At least 70% of private equity’s assets must be invested in companies, while up to 30% of its assets can be invested in other properties, in accordance with the investment policy.  Additionally, private equity must be established for a limited period.
• Venture capital – AIF that invests in startups or other early-stage companies that show high-growth potential. At least 70% of venture capital assets must be invested in this type of companies, while up to 30% of its assets can be invested in other properties, in accordance with the investment policy.
• Real Estate Private Placement AIF – AIF that must invest at least 70% of its assets in real estate, while up to 30% of its assets can be invested in other properties, in accordance with the investment policy.
• Fund of Funds – AIF that must invest at least 70% of its assets in other AIFs, while up to 30% of its assets can be invested in other property, in accordance with the investment policy. Fund of funds may be established as AIF which invests in hedge funds, venture capital, private equity, specialized AIFs, or fund of funds that invest in different types of AIFs.
• Hedge fund – AIF that invest in different types of highly risky property, with an aim to provide the highest investment returns possible as quickly as possible. Only professional investors can invest in a hedge fund.
• Specialized AIF – AIF that invest primarily in one particular industry or goods, in accordance with the investment policy. Specialized AIF’s name must contain a particular industry or goods into which it invests.  At least 70% of specialized AIF’s assets must be invested in specific industry or goods, while up to 30% of its assets can be invested in other properties, in accordance with the investment policy.

Additionally, according to the Act, there are two more special types of AIFs: European venture capital funds (EuVECA) and European social entrepreneurship funds (EuSEF). After the accession of the Republic of Serbia to the European Union, it will be possible to incorporate these funds, in accordance with the relevant EU regulations.

This text is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Should you require any additional information, feel free to contact us.

By Milos Velimirovic, Partner, and Nevena Milosevic, Associate, Samardzic, Oreski & Grbovic

As we witness the progress of technological achievements in our society, certain advancements in this field may give cause for concern in others, such as privacy and personal data protection laws. Although facial recognition technology has been around for a while, an increasing number of countries are starting to implement this technology in dealing with the ongoing pandemic. Its use is not limited only to special circumstances such as health emergencies; its use far exceeds a narrow scope of crises and extends into anything from preventing terrorist activities to keeping track of class attendance at school. Naturally, while this technology should be welcomed as its possibilities are further explored, there is a legitimate reason for legislators to stay alert, approach regulation of this issue carefully, and not abolish the privacy rights of citizens.

Global Phenomenon

China was among the first to implement this kind of technology, mainly under the pretense of fighting crime and prevention of terrorism. However, the vague nature of Chinese privacy and personal data protection laws allowed the use of technology for purposes far more commercial than the noble pursuit of eradicating crime. For example, in the case Guo Bin vs. Hangzhou Zoo, Mr. Guo was obliged to provide Hangzhou Zoo with the scan of his facial features based on a unilateral decision of the Zoo in order to access its premises under his previously paid subscription. Luckily, Chinese Law on the Protection of Consumers’ Rights and Interests requires that the collection and use of consumers’ personal data can be conducted in accordance with principles of legality, justification, and necessity, subject to the consent of the data subject, which provided grounds for a lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Guo against Hangzhou Zoo. Similarly, when Beijing Metro proposed the introduction of facial recognition software, such a proposal was deemed as excessive and unnecessary for the purpose it set out to achieve by a group of local jurists, resulting in the postponement of its application by the Metro.

Sadly, the most vulnerable among us had far less success in protecting their rights. A certain University introduced facial recognition software to monitor the attendance and behavior of students in classrooms. Due to the limited scope of Chinese data protection laws, this course of action did not breach any laws as classroom spaces were declared a “public space”.

China’s example was soon followed by countries such as Japan, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Singapore, Moldova, Russia, Australia, and the United States, just to name a few. The trend became apparent in the wake of an ongoing COVID-19 pandemic as it is one of the means by which governments track the movement of citizens and enforce the application of quarantine measures.

The legality of the use of facial recognition software cannot be questioned in most jurisdictions in the absence of the broader legislative acts akin to those of the European Union. The United States federal government (the United States Congress) did consider the issue and has come to bipartisan consent that the privacy concerns must be resolved through new policy proposals, but no such policy had been enacted on the federal level to this day. Privacy and personal data protection rights remain under the jurisdiction of individual states, while the level of protection varies from one state to the next.

Can This Happen in European Union?

Fortunately for European citizens, provisions of General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) offers a broader scope and more detailed protective measures than any of its global counterparts. According to Article 9 of GDPR, biometric data (e.g. facial features) is classified under the special category of data. Lawful processing of such data requires prior consent of the data subject apart from very few, explicitly prescribed exceptions. In an attempt to introduce facial recognition software in tracing attendance at school, unlike in the case of Chinese University, the municipality of Skelleftea in Sweden was issued a fine of approximately EUR 20.000 by the Swedish Data Protection Authority. Interestingly, the municipality was not fined on behalf of the school due to the lack of consent from data subjects, but because the consent was considered void due to the imbalance of power between the school and data subjects. In other words, Swedish Data Protection Authority drew a line between “consent”, which may be given under duress or coercion and thus considered void and “meaningful consent”, which is given freely and consequentially considered as valid.

This case, however, does not constitute a precedent regarding the application of GDPR within the European Union in relation to facial recognition software. The European Commission’s executive vice president for digital affairs stated in an interview that the Commission will further investigate concerns regarding automated facial recognition, allowing the member states to regulate this issue in the meantime.

Facial Recognition in Serbia

It seems that no official Serbian authority, including the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection (“Commissioner”), had considered the issue systematically or publicly up to this day. However, as Serbian Data Protection Act (“SDPA”) has been modeled after European Unions’ GDPR and stipulates in its Article 4 paragraph 1 (15) that a picture of data subjects face is considered biometric data, processing of such data by facial recognition software falls under requirements for lawful processing prescribed in Article 17 of the SDPA.

It may also be expected that the Serbian Commissioner will closely monitor policies and practices applied in other jurisdictions, especially in the European Union. As technology progresses, new policy proposals and regulations will be drafted accordingly.

This text is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Should you require any additional information, feel free to contact us.

By Katarina Zivkovic, Senior Associate, and Dragan Martin, Associate, Samardzic, Oreski & Grbovic

After almost two months, the state of emergency instituted because of the COVID-19 outbreak was revoked in the Republic of Serbia on 6 May 2020. Unlike the Decision on declaration a state of emergency from 15 March 2020, the Decision on revoking the state of emergency was adopted by the National Assembly. The Decision determined it will enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, which means that as of 6 May, state of emergency is no longer in effect in the Republic of Serbia.

Simultaneously with the adoption of the Decision on revoking the state of emergency, the National Assembly of Serbia adopted the Law on the validity of Decrees issued by the Government with co-signature of the President of the Republic of Serbia („Law“). Based on this Law, it is prescribed which Decrees (adopted during the state of emergency) cease to be valid on the day of revocation of the state of emergency, and which continue to be valid until adoption of appropriate laws that will replace them.

The most essential provisions of the Decrees that are no longer in force as of yesterday are those concerning the ban on people’s movement (for all categories of persons, regardless of age, the ban on movement is revoked), the ban of gathering more than two persons in public places, the ban on passengers transport in international air transport (flights from Belgrade’s Nikola Tesla Airport have already started), domestic railway and water transport, as well as public transport. Also, the provisions concerning the obligation of employers to organize the work of their employees remotely or from home are no longer in force.

Pursuant to the Law, the Decree on deadlines in court proceedings during the state of emergency has also ceased to be valid, so all procedural deadlines have started running again as of yesterday. Nevertheless, provisions of the Decrees adopted during the state of emergency shall continue to apply to the perpetrators of misdemeanors prescribed by these Decrees that have taken place during the state of emergency, even after the state of emergency was revoked.

In the meantime, The High Judicial Council has issued recommendations for courts stating that conditions for normalization of work as of Monday, 11 May, have been met. However, no court has still issued an official statement on the date of resuming work, meaning that this is still just a recommendation and not a definitive decision.

The Decree on the application of deadlines in administrative proceedings continues to apply, thus filing in administrative proceedings and notifying actions from which non-extendable deadlines start running (that have been conducted during the state of emergency), shall be deemed conducted 15 days from the date of revocation of the state of emergency. Deadlines that expired during the state of emergency, relating to undertaking the administrative actions, termination of administrative proceedings, and deciding upon the submitted legal remedies shall be deemed expired 30 days from the date of revocation of the state of emergency.

Also, the Decree on fiscal benefits and direct contribution to economic entities in the private sector and financial support of citizens remains in force, so that companies and citizens will be able to move on enjoying these benefits in the future, in accordance with this Decree. At the same time, provisions extending the deadlines for holding a regular session of the General Meeting of companies, for submitting annual reports and annual financial reports with auditor’s report, as well as the deadlines for submitting tax returns for corporate income tax and income tax for independent activities continue to apply.

When it comes to traveling across the state border, the borders are still closed and traveling is not possible, with an exception of air transport (persons traveling by plane will still have to spend 14 days in quarantine on their return to Serbia). There is still no official information on the date when the borders will be reopened.

By Milica Savic, Partner, independent Attorney at Law in cooperation with Karanovic & Partners