Category: Serbia

  • Zivkovic Samardzic Advises South Central Ventures on Second Investment in LeanPay

    Zivkovic Samardzic Advises South Central Ventures on Second Investment in LeanPay

    Zivkovic Samardzic has advised South Central Ventures on an unspecified investment in LeanPay, a consumer financing Fintech startup that helps people pay for consumer goods on credit and in installments.

    SCV manages the Enterprise Innovation Fund, a venture capital fund focusing on highly specialized and innovative small and medium-sized enterprises in the Western Balkans. The EUR 40 million Fund is dedicated primarily to early-stage and growth investments, intended to fuel the “international business expansion and growth.”

    This is SCV’s second investment in LeanPay, following its initial investment this spring (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on May 9, 2019).

    The Zivkovic Samardzic team on this most recent investment was led by Partner Igor Zivkovski

  • AP Legal and PwC Legal Advise on Eos Matrix’s NPL Portfolio Acquisition from Deposit Insurance Agency of Serbia

    AP Legal and PwC Legal Advise on Eos Matrix’s NPL Portfolio Acquisition from Deposit Insurance Agency of Serbia

    AP Legal has advised EOS Matrix on its acquisition via tender of the non-performing loan portfolios of Agrobanka Beograd, Nova Agrobanka Beograd, Privredna Banka Beograd, Razvojna Banka Vojvodine Novi Sad, and Univerzal Banka Beograd from the Deposit Insurance Agency of Serbia, acting in its capacity as the bankruptcy administrator for the banks. PwC Legal advised the Deposit Insurance Agency of Serbia.

    This is the first tender sale of an NPL portfolio by the Deposit Insurance Agency on the Serbian market. The nominal value of the portfolio is around EUR 242,000,000. Financial details of the transaction were not disclosed.

    EOS Matrix is a company that deals in international receivables management, including fiduciary collection, debt purchase, and business process outsourcing.

    The AP Legal team included Counsels Aleskandar Preradovic and Aleksandra Jovic and Senior Associate Dusan Preradovic

  • Zivkovic Samardzic Victorious for KRIK and Editor-in-Chief in Breach of Privacy Case

    Zivkovic Samardzic Victorious for KRIK and Editor-in-Chief in Breach of Privacy Case

    Zivkovic Samardzic has successfully represented KRIK and its editor-in-chief Stevan Dojcinovic before the High Court in Belgrade in a dispute against Nenad Popovic, the Serbian Minister responsible for innovation and technological development.

    KRIK is a non-profit organization established to improve investigative journalism in Serbia.

    The claim of Minister Nenad Popovic against KRIK regarding an article it published titled “Paradise Papers are not an attack on Popovic but an international project“ was rejected by the High Court.  

    The first-instance court determined that the public interest of having the information about the plaintiff published on KRIK’s website outweighed the Minister’s private interest in protecting his dignity, honor, and reputation. Also, the court made a point that “one cannot expect from journalists to only convey the information verbatim. A journalist is entitled to interpret that information, with the observance of a journalistic due diligence standard, which the journalists of KRIK did.”

    Zivkovic Samardzic has represented KRIK in other matters in the past, including earlier this year in a dispute with the editor-in-chief of Informer, a Serbian tabloid. (As reported by CEE Legal Matters on March 21, 2019).

    The Zivkovic Samardzic team was led by Partner Kruna Savovic.

  • JPM Advises China’s CSI on Concession for Four Underground Garages

    JPM Advises China’s CSI on Concession for Four Underground Garages

    JPM has advised China Shandong International Economic and Technical Cooperation Co. LTD regarding a concession project for four underground garages in the City of Belgrade.

    As announced by the officials of the City of Belgrade and the concessionaire, the project will result in approximately 3000 new parking places with a total gross surface area of over 55,000 square meters, with several underground levels in each garage.

    The JPM team was led by Senior Partner Jelena Gazivoda and Partners Nikola Djordjevic and Ivan Petrovic.

  • Harrisons Advises EBRD on Loan to Erste Bank Serbia

    Harrisons Advises EBRD on Loan to Erste Bank Serbia

    Harrisons has advised the EBRD in relation to a EUR 40 million loan to Erste Bank Serbia for the financing of small and medium-sized enterprises.

    Erste Bank Serbia is a member of Austria’s Erste Bank Group and among the top ten banks in Serbia’s financial sector.

    The Harrisons team included Partner Mark Harrison, Consultant Ines Matijevic Papulin, and Senior Associate Jovan Cirkovic.

  • Karanovic & Partners Helps ZF Open a Factory in Pancevo

    Karanovic & Partners Helps ZF Open a Factory in Pancevo

    Karanovic & Partners has advised the German company ZF on matters related to the opening of its factory in Pancevo, Serbia, as part of the first phase of a EUR 160 million investment. The factory will start producing machines, generators for hybrid and electric drives, gearshift switches, and microswitches in the first half of June.

    The Serbian Government pronounced this project an investment of importance for the state’s development. For the City of Pancevo, this is the first direct greenfield production-technological investment in the last 40 years.  

    ZF operates in 40 countries around the world and has a global workforce of over 146,000 employees. In 2017, it recorded sales of EUR 36.4 billion. 

    The Karanovic & Partners team was led by Senior Partner Marjan Poljak and included Senior Associates Ana Stankovic and Ana Lukovic.

  • New Amendments to the Law on the Registration Procedure with the Cadaster of Real Estate and Utility Lines

    On 25 April 2019 the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia adopted the Law on the amendments to the Law on the Registration Procedure with the Cadaster of Real Estate and Utility Lines (“Official Gazette of RS”, no. 31/2019), which amendments came into force on 30 April 2019.

    The Law on the amendments to the Law on the Registration Procedure with the Cadaster of Real Estate and Utility Lines (“Official Gazette of RS”, no. 31/2019) (the “Law”), which came into force on 30 April 2019, brought certain changes with regard to the procedure for registration with the Cadaster Services for Real Estate, all of which are in connection with the matter of expropriation of a real estate.

    More precisely, the Law brings three following changes:

    1. Limitation of the admissible annotations with regard to expropriated real estate or the real estate obtained through administrative transfer;

    2. Giving the priority status for deciding on registration entry of annotation on existence of the decision on expropriation of a real estate; and

    3. (Deletion of certain annotation entries with the Cadaster Registry before the Law came into force, with regard to the expropriated real estate/ real estate regarding which the title is registered on the basis of the decision on administrative transfer, as well as of annotation entries of mortgage on such real estate.

    Limitation of the admissible annotations with regard to expropriated real estate or the real estate obtained through administrative transfer

    Law sets forth in its Article 15, paragraph 1, the list of admissible annotations, meaning that it prescribes numerus clausus of circumstances and/or facts which are considered as relevant for the establishment, modification, termination or transfer of proprietary rights to real estate, relating to the title holder, real estate itself or to legal relations regarding the real estate.

    The novelty introduced by latest Law is that some annotations listed in Article 15, paragraph 1, cannot be registered with regard to a real estate when the proprietary right to such real estate is registered on the basis of final and binding decision on expropriation of the same, or on the basis of final and binding decision on administrative transfer of a real estate.

    The following annotations are excluded for the real estate obtained through a final and binding decision on expropriation, i.e. final and binding decision on administrative transfer:

    • Annotations of the existence of administrative court procedure against second instance administrative decision on registration in Real Estate Cadaster Registry, except in case of administrative decision the subject of which is deciding on annotation of the existence of legal dispute;
    • Annotations of the existence of court dispute initiated on the basis of claims specified under the Law;
    • Annotations of the existence of the decision on prohibition of alienation and encumbrance of the real estate; and
    • Other annotations prescribed under the law.

    Priority status for deciding on registration of annotation on existence of the decision on expropriation of a real estate

    The Law sets forth in Article 31, paragraphs 1 and 2, the general rule that regulates the order in which the competent Cadastral Registry Office shall process submitted registration requests, prescribing that the requests shall be resolved in order in which they have been received in the Cadastral Registry Office.

    However, paragraph 3 of the mentioned Article 31 sets forth exceptions from this general rule, prescribing that certain requests for registration have priority, i.e. that they shall be processed and decided before other requests that fall under the scope of the abovementioned general rule, regardless of the time line of their receipt in the Cadaster Registry Office.

    The novelty of the Law is that this priority status is now also established in favor of registration entries based on the laws and/or regulations regulating the matter of expropriation. 

    Deletion of certain annotation entries with the Cadaster Registry before the Law came into force, with regard to the expropriated real estate/real estate regarding which the title is registered on the basis of the decision on administrative transfer, as well as of annotations of mortgage on such real estate.

    The Law sets forth a new provision that prescribes that:

    a) all annotations with regard to the expropriated real estate/ real estate regarding which the title is registered on the basis of the decision on administrative transfer, which annotations were registered before the Law came into force, on one hand, and which are now excluded under the Law with regard to such real estate under Article 15 of the Law, on the other hand; as well as

    b) the annotations of mortgage on the expropriated real estate, shall be deleted with regard to the expropriated real estate and transferred, i.e. entered against the real estate granted as remuneration/compensation for expropriation, or against other personal property of the previous owner of the expropriated real estate.

    The purpose of this provision is to:

    • ensure proper enforcement of the rule of inadmissibility of certain annotations with regard expropriated real estate/ real estate regarding which the title is registered on the basis of the decision on administrative transfer under the Law; and to
    • ensure harmonization with the provision of Article 63 of the Law on Expropriation (“Official Gazette of RS”, no. 53/95, “Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”, no. 16/2001 – the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court and “Official Gazette of RS”, no. 20/2009, 55/2013 the decision of the Constitutional Court and 106/2016 – authentic interpretation), that prescribes that the mortgages established on the real estate that is subject of expropriation shall be transferred to the real estate granted as remuneration/compensation for expropriation, or other personal property of the previous owner of the expropriated real estate.

    By Ivan Petrovic, Head of Real Estate department and Marija Vukcevic, Senior Associate, JPM Partners

  • Tendency of Excessiveness With Regard to Legal Framework in Construction Regulations

    JPM’s Ivan Petrović recently provided an expert overview on noticeable tendency of excessiveness with regard to legal framework in construction regulations.

    This tendency can be easily noticed by comparison of the original solutions set forth in relevant laws in the field of construction with the solutions prescribed in the same laws after one or multiple amendments of the same.  Serbian laws tend to regulate particular issues in more and more details over the years that it appears that the legislators wish to regulate each situation that may come up in practice through the letter of law.

    А very good example of such practice is the Law on Spatial Planning and Construction. When first enacted in year 2003, this law regulated the matter of title over the land that the investor must have in order to obtain the construction permit with just one provision, while today this law regulates the same matter through seven paragraphs.

    In the light of adoption of the Law on Construction Products (“Official Gazette of RS”, no. 83/2018), which is the first law tackling this matter in Serbia, the issue of excessive legal regulation in the construction field in Serbia came into perspective once again. 

    The Law on Construction Products represents one of many manifestations of recognizable aspiration to harmonize our legal framework with the requirements and applicable regulations and standards of the EU. At the same time, it has put the spotlight on the issue of out of datedness of existing technical regulations and standards. The Law itself, as much as harmonized with the applicable EU Regulation no 305/2011 on harmonized conditions for the marketing of construction products, cannot resolve the issue of extensive and archaic technical regulations and standards still in force in Serbia. 

    The best example of mentioned obsolete and extensive regulatory practice is the Rulebook on compulsory attestation of elements of standard construction structures to fire resistance and on the mandatory conditions for organizations of associated labor authorized to certify these products, which remains in force since the early 90’s of the last century. This Rulebook sets forth numerous requirements with regard to attestation of construction structures to fire resistance, which results in imposing additional testing procedures and related costs to any construction market participant who intends to use construction products that come from the EU in Serbia. It seems that Serbian construction market now faces with the urgent need for implementation of technical regulations and standards harmonized with the EU standards, as well as with the need to resolve the matter of recognition of EU construction products in Serbia in order to relieve the construction market participants from doubling of respective testing procedures and from imposition of additional costs.

    By Ivan Petrovic, Head of Real Estate department JPM Jankovic Popovic Mitic

  • Compliance Out of the Shadows

    Adriana Minovic is the Head of Data Protection and DPO of the Ergomed Group, a provider of clinical research, pharmaco-vigilance, and other services in the Life Sciences industry, with headquarters in Guilford, U.K. Prior to joining Ergomed, Adriana was Head of Conent Security and DPO for the United Group, and before that as a lawyer specializing in regulatory/compliance matters at Air Serbia. Earlier still, she was an adviser for the European Integration Office of the Government of the Republic of Serbia and a legal adviser in Serbia’s Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Telecommunications.

    CEELM: How would you define the role of Compliance Officer?

    ADRIANA: While a Compliance Officer naturally deals with legal matters, he/she is much more involved in the regulatory/compliance aspects that impact the core business operations of a company. I would say the importance of the Compliance Officer role is increasing within companies, especially in regulatory areas such as GDPR, competition, IP, and cybersecurity – areas that were, in the past, in the shadows when compared to general legal matters. This is reflected in the growing trend of making the Chief Compliance officer role separate and equal to the General Counsel these days. 

    The in-house legal world is developing such that regulatory and compliance are increasingly part of the corporate and business strategy and are closely attached to business operations. Especially with the GDPR, you cannot do anything if you are not in very close communication with the business and business strategy. 

    Increasingly we see a set-up where compliance is involved in shaping strategy – which is then implemented by the legal and operations departments. Compliance tends to be closer to the board now, and topics from this area are among the mostly discussed legal matters in many board sessions. Of course, legal still plays a great part in these topics, especially on significant deals and corporate matters, but the fact is that compliance and regulatory are two functions which actively shape policy at the highest level on a consistent basis. 

    There is a note to be made here though. When I am talking of this trend I am referring to large and international companies, which operate in different markets and need to harmonize their approach in different jurisdictions. In small companies, it is less the case, since they won’t have to deal with many of the same compliance issues – though the GDPR is unfortunately impacting all equally.

    CEELM: It’s interesting that you are describing a trend of having compliance move higher up within the organization than the legal department, since in many instances compliance was, and still is, a function that falls within the area of responsibility of the Head of Legal.

    ADRIANA: Yes, traditionally compliance fell under legal. I am not saying that this approach is not feasible, but then you need to have GCs with broad knowledge about different areas of law and issues that intersect various industries, who can handle both legal and compliance and regulatory thoroughly, which is quite a tall order. Having to deal with IT law, compliance, competition, etc. Also, the compliance/regulatory role must have much more detailed knowledge about business processes and industry information than traditional legal roles. All this combined makes for a quite challenging job description. That’s why I see these two departments becoming separate more and more often. 

    CEELM: When did this trend start? How were things different, say, ten years ago?

    ADRIANA: Back then compliance was not that big of an issue. Some might argue that in some countries the compliance culture still is underdeveloped. In Serbia, and in the Balkan region as a whole, I think it still is the case that usually people have the impression that compliance is price-optional – good to have but costly and not mandatory. I am seeing a heavy shift though. Anticorruption, Competition, IP, and Data Protection are are becoming real priorities for organizations – especially innovative companies that are working in the IT industry or which use advanced technological solutions in their business (as is the case in the Life Science industry).

    CEELM: Is it purely legislative developments that are driving this change, or are there other factors?

    ADRIANA: Of course the primary driver is legislation. It usually is the element from which everything starts, as people truly start worrying about these things when they get scared by penalties. What is recognized in companies with a strong compliance culture is the cost of not being compliant. 

    But it’s more than that. It comes down to how best to set up the way in which your company operates – the functional environment of business processes within the company. Lately there are much more situations in which I see the compliance person also acting as the Chief Strategy Officer. It makes sense in a world where much of our operations are dictated by the regulatory set-up and I think that a significant driver is exactly that: the goal of setting up your business operations right from the very design stage, rather than slapping a compliance procedure at the end of an already-existing process. 

    CEELM: How should Compliance Officers aim to develop themselves to excel at their jobs?

    ADRIANA: The most important thing to do is to understand the industry – not just your company, but the industry as a whole. You should be following industry trends to get a sense of what the future holds, especially in heavily-regulated industries. That is the most critical element, if you want to be able to have a really broad perspective on things to facilitate your risk assessments about the future endeavors of your company. 

    CEELM: How do you achieve this in-depth understanding of your organization specifically?

    ADRIANA: If we are talking about compliance/regulatory roles in the Legal department, it’s a matter of designing the legal team based on a business partner model. Your team members should be as close to the ground as possible to stay in the loop. In my case, I aim to be involved in every business plan and commercial strategy discussion. That way, from the very beginning, when a new business strategy is being developed I am brought on as early as possible to understand the desired set-up and offer input on how we can design the new strategy to be fully compliant. 

    Even if we look at the GDPR, I believe one of the least recognized yet most important elements is that of “privacy by design.” The goal is to have the principles of data protection assimilated in all aspects of our operations from the very beginning, when the projects are started. With this approach, you ensure that you are taking compliance into account at each stage of the development of your processes. 

    CEELM: What advice would you give to other compliance officers reading this?

    ADRIANA: Both are aspects I touched upon already. First, make sure you focus on your business. I would say that, if you really want to be a great Chief Compliance Officer, you need to understand your business inside and out. It is not enough to have gone through a thorough legal training – although that’s of course a prerequisite. This role is very people-oriented, and you will find you have a hard time getting anyone to buy into what you are promoting if your colleagues recognize at any point that you do not fully understand the business and their work. You’ll simply lose that critical respect you need to push your ideas through. 

    Second, be proactive. Approach the rest of the business and explain your role over and over again. Everyone will be better off if a compliance expert cooperates with the rest of the functions on any project from the very beginning. The traditional model is that business people create something new, then they send it to legal, which, in turn, makes several comments. At this point, everyone feels frustrated because “legal is slowing down the closing of the deal.” Avoid that stress, both for you and your colleagues, by making sure you do everything you can to be a reliable partner and design it all right from the very beginning.  

    This Article was originally published in Issue 6.3 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Support Scheme for Renewables in Serbia: A New Chapter

    At the end of 2018, the Government of the Republic of Serbia extended the validity of the Decree on Incentive Measures for the Production of Electric Energy from Renewable Energy Sources and High-efficiency Cogeneration of Electric Energy and Thermal Energy (the “FIT Decree”) until the end of 2019. The FIT Decree was initially valid until the end of 2018.

    The FIT Decree is part of a package of decrees setting out the support scheme for renewable energy, along with the decree governing the status of (preliminary) privileged power and a model power purchase agreement.

    The current support scheme set out the overall quota for supporting wind power projects if up to 500 MW of installed capacity. The entire quota was distributed well before the initial term of the FIT Decree expired. 

    As a result of the extension of the validity of the FIT Decree, wind projects which have not secured their place within the quota – which have not yet obtained the (preliminary) privileged power producer status – may not benefit from incentives. According to the latest information available, there are nine wind power plants (with a total capacity of approximately 570 MW) in different stages of development that have previously expressed interest in receiving support. 

    The extension makes it clear that the Government has not yet decided what the support scheme will look like in the future. Apparently, the Government gave itself a one-year window to decide whether it will stick to the feed-in tariff with some adjustments or move towards more market-based incentives.

    According to unofficial information, the Ministry of Mining and Energy engaged an external consultant to propose a support scheme for the future. Again unofficially, the proposal should be ready for public presentation before this summer. The Government should pass a new scheme by the end of the year, with the first round of incentive awards in accordance with the new scheme taking place in 2020.

    Previous endeavors have shown that the critical factor for the realization of large-scale projects is a support scheme that meets bankability criteria. Stakeholders rightfully hope that the new scheme will implement the lessons learned from previous schemes. In the first place, the new scheme would need to ensure an adequate allocation of risks among the parties involved to ensure that a party most suitable to bear the risk actually does so. For example, as long as there is no intra-day market, transferring the balancing responsibility to the producers would not be justified. It goes without saying that ensuring that the support entity is of adequate creditworthiness, that reasonable deadlines are in place for the finalization of projects, that protection exists in the case of force majeure, and that reliable dispute resolution mechanisms must be put in place if we want to see new blades spinning.  

    In preparation for the new support scheme, the decision makers should ensure that the new scheme envisages a competitive process for awarding incentives, rather than the first-come-first-serve system that Serbia has historically employed. A competitive process would promote the cost-efficient development of wind projects by achieving competition among reputable developers, resulting in lower financial burdens for consumers. The competitive process would also provide for greater transparency and equal chances for projects that have been developed for years (as mentioned above, nine projects have already expressed an interest in receiving support). Last but not least, both the Energy Community and, at this point, indirectly, the European Union, insist that support schemes promote sustainable, market-oriented, and transparent support mechanisms. This can only be achieved through a competitive process for awarding incentives. 

    There is still no indication whether the new scheme would envisage the support through power purchase agreements or so-called contracts-for-difference (where the support granted is the difference between the price which the producers have been guaranteed awarded and the market price of electricity). The impression is that the mechanics itself is of less importance if the support scheme is takes into account the criteria discussed above. 

    By Petar Mitrovic, Partner / Independent attorney at law in cooperation with Karanovic & Partners

    This Article was originally published in Issue 6.4 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.