Category: Serbia

  • Bojanovic & Partners and ODI Advise on King Engine Bearings Group Acquisition of Assets of Sinter A.D.

    Bojanovic & Partners and ODI Advise on King Engine Bearings Group Acquisition of Assets of Sinter A.D.

    Bojanovic & Partners has advised King Engine Bearings group, a manufacturer of engine bearings for automobiles, trucks, marine, and aviation, on its acquisition, through its Serbian subsidiary Sinterfuse d.o.o., of the assets of Serbian joint stock company Sinter a.d. u likvidaciji. ODI Law advised the sellers.

    The agreement was signed in September 2016, and has just closed.

    Sinter, a Serbian and producer of non-ferrous metals and sinter powdered products, privatized in 2005 and organized as a joint stock company.

    The Bojanovic & Partners team was led by Senior Partner Vladimir Bojanovic.

    The ODI team was led by Partner Milos Curovic, supported by Associate Ivana Drobac.

  • Bojovic & Partners Advises Poseidon Group on Development of Belgrade’s Largest Retail Park

    Bojovic & Partners Advises Poseidon Group on Development of Belgrade’s Largest Retail Park

    Bojovic & Partners has advised the Poseidon Group on the development of Capitol Park Rakovica, which the firm reports is Belgrade’s largest retail park.

    Construction of Capitol Park Rakovica is in progress, with the grand opening scheduled in October 2017. Bojovic & Partners describes the retail park as “a retail complex made of two separate objects organized around and within the central plaza of a total built surface in excess of 21,000 square meters with 30 stores containing world-famous brands and more than 750 car parking spaces in the first phase of the development alone. The total land area is 65,000 square meters. The tenants are local and foreign trade and fashion chains, a hypermarket, as well as stores for home decor, sports, shoes, toys, electronics, and other services.”

    The Poseidon Group has reportedly invested approximately EUR 30 million into Capitol Park Rakovica. The company, which has operated in Serbia for more than a decade, operates other retail park projects in Sabac and Sombor.

    Bojovic & Partners reports that its work on the matter “included due diligence, dealing with bankruptcy processes when acquiring the real estate on which to build the scheme, drafting transactional documentation, managing the permitting process, preparing construction contracts, conducting the conversion of the right of use on land into ownership, drafting and negotiating more than 40 lease agreements, and other related legal matters.”

    The firm’s team was led by Partner Marija Bojovic and Real Estate Practice Co-Head Ivan Gazdic, supported by Associates Mario Kijanovic and Milos Radonjic.

  • Bojanovic & Partners Assists Trigano in Acquisition of Zastava Inpro

    Bojanovic & Partners Assists Trigano in Acquisition of Zastava Inpro

    Bojanovic & Partnershas  assisted Trigano, a European manufacturer of trailers, semi-trailers, and camping cars, in its acquisition of the assets of the Serbian company Zastava Inpro. The acquisition was conducted in a public tender procedure in late 2016.

    Zastava Inpro is a member of Zastava Oruzje group of companies. Its main activity is the production of light-trailers for cars and camping cars. Following the Serbian government’s decision to sell Zastaca Inpro’s trailer production segment, Trigano established a Serbian subsidiary — Trigano Prikolice — to participate in the public tender procedure. According to Bojanovic & Partners, in addition to the purchase price, Trigano agreed to retain 160 Zastava Inpro employees, half of which are people with disabilities.

    The Bojanovic & Partners team was led by Senior Partner Vladimir Bojanovic. 

  • JPM Promotes Labor/Employment Specialist to Partner

    JPM Promotes Labor/Employment Specialist to Partner

    JPM Jankovic Popovic Mitic has announced that Lidija Pejcinovic has been promoted from Senior Associate to Partner at the firm.

    Pejcinovic specializes in Labor/Employment Law. She is a graduate of the University of Belgrade (LL.B., 2009) and the University of Graz (LL.M, 2011). She joined JPM in 2012 as a junior lawyer and become a Senior Associate after her admission to the Belgrade Bar in 2013.

  • A Boost for Investments in Serbia: The New Regulation on Terms and Conditions of Attracting Direct Investments

    The Government of the Republic of Serbia adopted a new Regulation on the Terms and Conditions of Attracting Direct Investments, in place of the previous Regulation which was in force since March 2016. The new Regulation is expected to secure continuity of economic growth, to obtain new capacities and technology, and to induce job creation. Furthermore, it introduces stricter controls regarding fulfillment of contractual obligations, and especially promotes investments in “devastated areas”.

    The Regulation defines direct investments as investments in material and non-material assets of a company, which are directed at initiating a new business activity or expanding existing capacities and scope of production to include new products, which leads to job creation. Domestic and foreign investors alike are eligible to apply for subsidies based on this Regulation in order to support their investment projects.

    However, under this scheme, investment projects in certain sectors are not eligible to receive funding. These relate to projects in the traffic sector, hospitality, software, games of chance, trade, synthetic fiber production, production of coal and steel, tobacco and tobacco products, weapon and munition, shipbuilding, airports, utility sector, energy sector, and broadband networks. Subsidies also cannot be directed at funding undertakings in difficulties.

    The minimum conditions for a company to qualify for funding have been lowered when compared to the previous Regulation. Under this scheme, it is required that an investor invests at least EUR 100.000 and hires at least ten new employees in order to benefit from subsidies based on this Regulation. For every newly opened workplace, the state will finance the investor with an amount ranging from EUR 3.000 to EUR 7.000, depending on how developed is the region in which the funds are invested. The right to participate in the process of obtaining subsidies is reserved for investors who obtain at least 25% of funds from their own resources and other resources which do not constitute state aid.

    Other conditions that investors must fulfill in order to obtain subsidies under this regulation are that they have a registered business entity with the Serbian Business Register Agency, and that they have submitted a business plan for the investment project. It is also required that their company is not subject to bankruptcy or liquidation proceedings, that the legal representative of the company has not been charged with a criminal offence related to their professional duties, and that the company has no outstanding tax obligations. Furthermore, it is necessary that in the past year the company has not reduced the number of its employees for more than 10 percent, and that the company has not previously benefited from subsidies granted from the state budget of the Republic of Serbia for the same purpose.

    The amount of the subsidies will vary depending on the level of development of the municipality (according to the criteria laid out in the Regulation) in which the investment is made. The maximum amount of funding, EUR 7.000 per one newly created work place, will be awarded to investors who invest in the so called “devastated areas”.

    By Milan Samardzic, Partner, SOG / Samardzic, Oreski & Grbovic

  • Dentons Advises BNP Paribas Group on Sale of Serbian Subsidiary to Direktna Banka

    Dentons Advises BNP Paribas Group on Sale of Serbian Subsidiary to Direktna Banka

    Dentons has advised the BNP Paribas Group in connection with the sale of its Serbian bank subsidiary, Findomestic Banka a.d., to Serbian bank Direktna Banka A.D. Kragujevac. Zdravkovic & Partneri reportedly advised Direktna Banka on the deal. The deal was signed on November 18, 2016 and closed on January 31, 2017, The purchase price was not disclosed.

    Findomestic Banka Serbia has been operating in Serbia since 2006. It is a universal bank operating on two main business lines (corporate banking and retail banking) which includes a personal finance segment. 

    The Dentons team consisted of Partners Rob Irving and Chris Watkinson and Associate Balazs Varszeghi.

    Zdravkovic & Partneri did not reply to our inquiry on the matter. 

    Image Source: findomestic.rs

  • Serbia: Terms and Conditions for Attracting Direct Investments

    In late December 2016, the Government of Serbia passed the new Decree on Terms and Conditions for Attracting Direct Investments. The Decree supplements the Law on Investments (2015), regulating in finer detail criteria, conditions and means of attracting direct investments, in particular granting of State incentive funds for investment projects. 

    In Serbia, the State investment support structure is made up of the following entities:

    • Ministry of Economy
    • Council for Economic Development
    • Development Agency of Serbia (RAS)
    • Autonomous Provinces
    • Local municipalities (including Units for Local Economic Development and Investment Support as dual development/investment support operational units of Autonomous Provinces and local municipalities
    I. GENERAL ELIGIBILITY

    Incentive funds can be used for financing investment projects in:

    • manufacturing sector
    • services sector (that may involve international trade in services)

    Incentive funds cannot be used for financing investment projects in the following sectors:

    • Energy
    • Coal and Steel
    • Airports
    • Traffic
    • Trade
    • Public utilities
    • Hospitality
    • Software development
    • Games of chance 
    • Tobacco 
    • Synthetic fibres
    • Manufacturing of arms and ammunition
    • Shipbuilding (commercial vessels exceeding 100 tones)
    • Companies in distress

    An eligible entity is under the obligation to secure at least 25% of justified expenses from its own sources or other sources that do not involve provision of State aid.

    While the Decree does not differentiate between domestic and foreign investors, the primary distinguishing factor is the size of a corporate entity to which government incentives are being allocated. 

    Large enterprise – over 250 employees and net asset value exceeding EUR 43 mil

    Medium enterprise – between 50 and 250 employees and annual revenue not exceeding EUR 50 mil or net asset value not exceeding EUR 43 mil

    Small enterprise – less than 50 employees and annual revenue (or net asset value) not exceeding EUR 10 mil

    II. ELIGIBLE PROJECTS

    Subsidies in manufacturing sector may be granted for investment projects that are valued from EUR 100,000 and employ at least 10 employees.  

    Subsidies in services sector that may involve international trade in services may be granted for projects that are valued from EUR 150,000 and employ at least 15 employees. 

    Subsidies in agriculture sector may be granted for projects that are valued from EUR 2,000,000 and employ at least 25 employees. 

    The Decree imposes the obligation that a subsidy may be granted only under the following conditions:

    • direct investment must remain at the same location in a local municipality for at least five (5) years after completion of an investment project for large enterprises, or three (3) years for small and medium enterprises; and
    • total number of employees shall not be reduced after completion of an investment project for at least five (5) years for large enterprises, or three (3) years for small and medium enterprises.
    III. INCENTIVE CAPS

    Maximum amount of allocated funds for large enterprises must not exceed 50% of justified expenses for completion of an investment project. 

    Maximum amount of allocated funds for medium enterprises must not exceed 60% of justified expenses for completion of an investment project. 

    Maximum amount of allocated funds for small enterprises must not exceed 70% of justified expenses for completion of an investment project. 

    Maximum amount of allocated funds for investments over EUR 50 mil must not exceed 25% of justified expenses for completion of an investment project. 

    Maximum amount of allocated funds for investments over EUR 100 mil must not exceed 17% of justified expenses for completion of an investment project. 

    IV. TYPES OF INCENTIVES 

    A. Incentives for justified expenses on gross salaries for new employees 

    Depending on geographical area of an investment, in order to stimulate investments in underdeveloped parts of Serbia, between EUR 3000 and EUR 7000 per employee may be provided. 

    B. Incentives for justified expenses on fixed assets

    Depending on geographical area of an investment, in order to stimulate investments in underdeveloped parts of Serbia, between 10% and 30% for justified expenses on fixed assets may be provided. 

    C. Additional expenses for labour-intensive investment projects

    For labour-intensive investment projects, non-refundable funds may be increased by 10%, 15%  and 20% of gross employee salaries, for every increase of new employment positions over 200, 500 and 1000 new employees, respectively. 

    V. TIMEFRAMES

    Timeframe for completion of an investment project and employment of new employees is up to three (3) years from the submission of the application for grant of incentive funds; that may be, extended (after entering into the contract for grant of incentive funds) for up to five (5) years, provided that circumstances necessitating extension of time are justified, in order to most efficiently achieve aims of a particular investment and facilitate Serbia’s economic development. 

    Timeframe for completion of an investment project of special significance and employment of new employees is up to ten (10) years from submitting the application for grant of incentive funds. 

    Projects of special significance are defined and addressed in more detail in Article 16 of the Decree as projects of special significance for economic development of Serbia, taking into consideration total investment value, number of new employees and specific development priorities of a local municipality where an investment project is taking place. 

    VI. LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL ASPECTS

    After an investor meets all procedural/administrative requirements, including submission of the Letter of Intent, the Application for Grant of Incentive Funds, Investment Project Business Plan and other ancillary documentation, the Development Agency of Serbia (RAS) determines whether formal requirements for grant of incentive funds have been met. The Development Agency of Serbia then sends the following documentation to the Council for Economic Development: 

    i) Application for Grant of Incentive Funds

    ii) Expert Assessment on Investment Project Quality

    iii) Proposal on the amount of incentive funds to be granted

    iv) Draft Contract for Grant of Incentive Funds 

    After the Council for Economic Development makes the Decision on Grant of Incentive Funds, the Development Agency of Serbia (RAS) submits the Council Decision and the Draft Contract for Grant of Incentive Funds to the Ministry of Economy.

    The Ministry of Economy delivers the Council Decision and the Draft Contract for Grant of Incentive Funds to the State Commission for Control of State Aid, for the purpose of assessing whether the grant of incentive funds in a particular instance complies with legal framework governing State aid.

    Subsequently, the Ministry of Economy prepares the final version of Contract for Grant of Incentive Funds, supplementing/amending the Draft prepared by the Development Agency of Serbia (RAS). 

    VII. THE CONTRACT FOR GRANT OF INCENTIVE FUNDS

    The Contract for Grant of Incentive Funds incorporates the following (and other) terms:

    • Investment amount and dynamics
    • Number of new jobs created by the investment
    • Anticipated expenses of gross salaries for newly created jobs
    • Investor’s obligation to pay contractually agreed salaries
    • Timing for completion of the investment project
    • Dynamics of paying out granted incentive funds
    • Security instruments 
    • Reporting obligations
    • Control of contractual obligations
    • Breach provisions
    • Force majeure clause
    • Environmental protection clause
    • Work Safety clause
    • Dispute resolution clause
    VIII. SECURITY INSTRUMENTS

    An investor is under the obligation to submit a bank guarantee issued by a commercial bank registered in the Republic of Serbia, unconditional and payable upon the first call in favour of the Republic of Serbia. 

    Granted incentive funds must be secured by a bank guarantee, in accordance with the Contract. In addition to the bank guarantee, an investor must submit two blank (registered and signed) promissory notes 

    IX.   CONCLUDING REMARKS

    Navigating and utilising Serbia’s investment framework entails making practical and effective use of State incentives laid out in the Decree on Terms and Conditions for Attracting Direct Investments. As relatively novel Law on Investments (2015) is still being tested in practice, the Decree supplementing it now provides further legal certainty to potential investors. While ensuring legal compliance and procedural consistency during the application phase is important for the investment support institutions, it should be ensured that this process is also relatively seamless for an investor, without undue delays and unexpected hurdles. 

    By Janko Nikolic, Senior Associate, JPM Jankovic Popovic Mitic, a member of TLA.

  • BDK Advokati Creates Spanish Desk in Serbia

    BDK Advokati Creates Spanish Desk in Serbia

    BDK Advokati has announced the formation of a Spanish desk, coordinated by the firm’s two Spanish-qualified lawyers.

    The first, Pablo Perez Laya, joined the firm in January 2017. He is a member of the Madrid Bar and has more than seven years of experience in commercial contracting, real estate & real estate finance, IT, data protection, and telecoms. He earned his LL.B. from University of Navarra (Spain) in 2005, and he obtained an LL.M. in Business Law in 2006 from IE Law School in Madrid and another LL.M., in Law and Digital Technologies, from the Leiden University in the Netherlands. Before joining BDK Advokati, Pablo worked at the Real Estate Departments of Linklaters and SJ Berwin in Madrid and at the IP & TMT practice group of Clifford Chance in Amsterdam.

    The second, Lazar Radic, joined BDK Advokati in 2015, and specializes in EU & competition law. Serbian by origin, Radic grew up in Spain, where he obtained his LL.B from Universidad Autonoma de Madrid in 2012. In addition, he earned an LL.M in European Union and International Law from the University of Amsterdam in 2014. He also has a degree in Political Science. Before joining BDK Advokati, Lazar worked as an associate for the prominent Spanish competition boutique Martinez, Lage Allendesalazar & Brokelmann.

    The firm claims that, with Laya and Radic, it is “the only law firm in Serbia with two qualified Spanish lawyers and testifying to our second-to-none ability to assist Spanish enterprises that wish to do business in the region.”

  • Law on Housing and Maintenance of Apartment Buildings

    The rights and obligations of people who live in apartment buildings, maintenance of apartment buildings and relationships between the owners of apartments have never been regulated in Serbia comprehensively and in detail.

    Earlier regulations have exhibited inefficiency in most sensitive and important situations, such as removing the risk of damage and compelling owners of apartments to fulfil their obligations if they refuse to do so. The previous Law on Maintenance of Apartment Buildings was, in essence, applied efficiently only when it came to deciding on use of common areas of the buildings.

    The previous Law on Maintenance of Apartment Buildings had been in application over the past twenty years. During this period apartment owners entirely lost all awareness of the fact that, apart from ownership rights to their apartments, they also have certain obligations regarding the buildings in which these apartments are located and that these obligations have to be fulfilled on a regular basis. This particularly relates to maintenance of apartment buildings in context of removing risks to life and health, to the environment and to valuable property, as a public interest. 

    For this very reason it became necessary to change the legal framework governing this area and introduce new mechanisms that enable more efficient implementation of regulations, reinstating awareness of obligations that accompany ownership rights to apartments and more precisely regulate relationships between apartment owners. 

    After twenty years, the new Law on Housing and Maintenance of Apartment Buildings is aimed at introducing more order into the area of housing and maintenance of apartment buildings.

    Among other matters, the new Law on Housing and Maintenance of Apartment Buildings regulates the rights and obligations of owners of separate parts of buildings, as well as the manner of managing, using and maintaining buildings, in addition to making an attempt to ensure consistent and proper application of the law, particularly as it relates to maintenance.

    Rights and obligations of owners of separate and standalone parts of buildings

    The previous Law on Maintenance of Apartment Buildings failed in: clearly delineating separate parts of buildings; clearly defining the difference between apartments and business premises;  recognizing garages and parking spots as building parts. Thus management of buildings was not clearly defined, given that the rights of owners of separate parts of buildings which have a special purpose were unclear. The new Law clearly defines separate parts, the difference and boundaries between separate parts and common areas of buildings, and the legal regime of ownership over all parts of buildings, including walls and installations. Apart from separate parts and common areas, the new law also introduces the category of standalone parts of buildings – rooms with technical equipment – which are owned by the entity that owns the installations. Clearly differentiating between the different parts of a building enables differentiating between the responsibilities of owners of the separate parts.

    The owners of separate and standalone parts of buildings, apart from having ownership rights over their separate parts of the building, are also entitled to take part in management of the building, carry out repairs on common areas that are necessary in order to remove risk of damage to their respective separate parts, make alterations to their separate parts without affecting other areas of the building and use the common areas of the building. The rights of apartment owners are formulated so as to practically constitute a limitation of ownership rights to the separate part and the obligation of apartment owners to respect the rights of other separate parts owners when exercising their own rights. The legal obligations of apartment owners, as indeed their rights, constitute a limitation of ownership rights in the interest of protecting the building and the owners of its other separate parts.

    A new element that has now been introduced is the obligation of each owner of a separate part of the building to allow passage through his/her separate part if necessary for the maintenance or repair of another part of the building or for fulfilment of some other legal obligation. The reason for this provision, which admittedly does intrude into ownership rights, is clear and justified. However, the law failed to regulate in detail the procedure of enforcement against an apartment owner who does not permit access to his/her apartment. If access to somebody else’s apartment is urgent, but the owner objects, the law has to prescribe a mechanism to properly enforce this provision. There is also the issue of who is competent to decide whether repairs or maintenance are necessary, by way of gaining access into somebody else’s apartment.

    Management of buildings

    The law prescribes that each building is to be managed by a building community comprised of owners of its separate parts. The community is to be recorded in a separate register, in a procedure before the local governing administration. The registration procedure and content of the register are specified by the Law, however as the purpose of registration is unknown it appears that the obligation of citizens to register their building community is not justified.

    The mere existence of a register containing such data is useful, but the obligation to register is pointless, and to citizens who will have to pay registration duties and fees it represents an unnecessary expense. The idea of a voluntary register is justified, but establishment of a compulsory register of building communities is a burden with no justification. Namely, apartment owners will now have to pay the registration costs, and will later have to pay the costs of maintaining bank accounts, preparing annual financial statements and other costs they will incur solely because this new Law has been adopted.

    A positive new element of the Law is the right of owners of separate parts of a building to, unanimously, reach a decision on the mutual relationships between the owners of the separate parts of the building. These rules, which will be publicly accessible by way of the register of building communities, will allow apartment owners to regulate their mutual rights and obligations and specify manner of adopting acts and decisions , including the manner in which management bodies are to take action in specific situations. These rules can significantly enhance management of buildings. Given that way in which management bodies of the building are to act in specific situations can be specified, this would improve both the efficiency of implementation of the Law and maintenance of buildings. 

    Buildings, or rather building communities, will be managed by a management committee and a manager. Two managerial bodies were prescribed in the previous law as well, but their rights and obligations are now specified in more detail.

    A building management committee will decide on important issues such as appointing and removing the manager, taking out loans, using common areas, adopting maintenance programs, the amount of a monthly maintenance fee etc. The committee will decide by a simple majority of votes of present members, except for certain issues such as taking out loans and appointing a professional building manager where a two-thirds majority of votes of the building community’s management committee will be required.

    The building manager will represent the building, carry out the decisions of the building community, manage the registration procedure, ensure regular maintenance program, organize urgent repair works and the like. The manager will be appointed by the management committee by simple majority. The manager can be a member of the building community’s management committee, but the committee may also opt to hire a professional management organization to fulfil that role. A professional management organization is a company which must employ at least one licensed building manager recorded in the register of professional managers, maintained by the Serbian Chamber of Commerce.

    A professional manager may also be appointed to manage a building community as an administrator if the building community is not registered or has not appointed management bodies (a management committee and a building manager). The administrator will undertake all obligations of a professional manager and will carry out these obligations until a new manager is appointed, or, until an agreement on professional management is reached.

    Professional managers must carry professional liability insurance with coverage of not less than EUR 10,000. 

    The provisions regulating the appointment of management bodies and manner of taking action in certain situations are a logical solution, particularly when building communities are not interested in organizing themselves and fulfilling their obligations. The Law has thus protected the public interest in preventing and removing risks to life and health, to the environment and to valuable property. Administration has to exist in building communities in order to protect the public interest irrespective of the will of individual owners. However, the Law has failed to restrict the administrator’s powers, particularly with regard to remuneration fee for such work, which will leave room for abuse of this position.

    Maintenance

    Owners of apartments and separate building parts are obliged to carry out activities aimed at building maintenance (regular maintenance, urgent repair work and investment maintenance). The owners of separate parts will be jointly and severally liable for damage caused to third parties through failure to carry out or to properly carry out the duties within the competence of the building community, including cases when it is impossible to determine the specific separate part from which the damage originated.

    Local self-government units will be in charge of inspecting whether maintenance work is carried out, and if it is found that it is not, and that damage could be subsequently caused to lives and health of people, to the environment or to valuable property, the local self-government unit will take over and either carry out or outsource the maintenance work. The local self-government unit will adopt an act on the minimum sum for regular maintenance of buildings, an act on the fee amount to be paid in case of administration and an act on the minimum sum to be set aside for investment maintenance costs.

    The costs of regular maintenance and management will be paid in equal shares for each separate part, while the costs of investment maintenance will be paid in proportion to the surface area of each separate part.

    The costs of regular and investment maintenance may not be less than the minimum amount as specified by the local self-government.

    In the regular course of affairs the management committee of each building community has to render a decision on the amount to be paid for regular and investment maintenance. These funds are to be paid into the building’s bank account, and disbursed by the building manager, who shall then report to the building community’s management committee. The manager is also in charge of proposing a regular maintenance program to the committee, and in charge of carrying out the program. Ideally, this concept would be entirely suitable but the same concept was applicable under the previous law as well, substantially limited by the lack of willingness of each individual building community to implement it.

    In emergencies, which can be expected to be common, the local self-government units will appoint administrators to building communities, since it is extremely likely that most building communities will not be formed and registered. Administrators have restricted powers regarding the obligation of maintenance of the building, and the fee for their work is determined by an act rendered by the local self-government. On the other hand, administrators have full discretion when it comes to deciding which work is to be carried out and what is to be done with regard to maintenance of a building. Regarding these costs administrators have no restrictions, and are supervised by the authorities that appoint them, even through the costs will ultimately be borne by the apartment owners.

    The new Law on Housing and Maintenance of Apartment Buildings introduces important new elements, and will undoubtedly play a part in resolving the issue of apartment buildings maintenance.

    On the other hand, a large number of issues has remained unresolved, such as forced collection of dues for maintenance and the manner of exercising the right to enter somebody else’s apartment for repair or maintenance of another part of the building. Furthermore, the additional expenses arising from the obligation to register building communities, maintain a bank account, prepare financial statements are unfair and burdening, lacking justification. On the other hand, apartment owners do need to become aware of their responsibilities, and the fact that they have an obligation to maintain buildings they live in, including payment of expenses. The solutions put in place by the new Law are conceptually justified and quite acceptable, yet in some respects fail to take into account relics from the past and the fact that this area of law has been so far substantially neglected and unregulated.

    By Ivan Petrovic, Senior Associate, JPM Jankovic Popovic Mitic, a member of TLA.

  • Principle of Efficiency or Principle of Argumentation?

    The latest amendments of the Law of Civil Procedure entered into force on 31 May, 2014. New efforts and the legislator’s intent to make the civil procedure more cost-effective and more efficient can be seen from the initial provisions.

    On the other hand, the legislator remains traditionally true to the principle of argumentation, introducing a new mechanism with the aim of providing plaintiffs with an additional opportunity to state their views before a decision is reached to reject the claim. The attention paid by the legislator to the principle of procedural efficiency is clearly not to the detriment of other principles making the essence of a civil procedure process.

    The symbiosis of the mentioned principles is reflected in the court being legally obliged to first, before examining the claim itself, examine whether conditions for conducting litigation have been met, set out in Article 294 of the Law of Civil Procedure. If it finds that any of the conditions have not been met, the court is obliged to reject the claim. However, paragraph 2 of the same Article specifies that before rendering a decision to reject the claim, the court is obliged to hold a hearing, at which the plaintiff will be able to state their view on the circumstances resulting in the claim rejection. Circumstances resulting in the claim rejection fall into two groups: remediable and irremediable procedural obstacles.

    Remediable procedural obstacles (e.g. the fact that a claim is unintelligible or incomplete) are by nature such that they can be corrected by the plaintiff by amending or supplementing the claim, while irremediable procedural obstacles (the claim was not filed on time, a procedure is already pending relating to the same claim, a final decision has already been reached on the claim, the plaintiff has no legal interest to file the claim) are such that they cannot be rectified by any action of the plaintiff.

    It must be noted that in prescribing Article 294 of the Law of Civil Procedure, the legislator left it somewhat unspecific, given that the cited provision states that before rendering a decision to reject the claim, the court is obliged to hold a hearing at which the plaintiff will be able to state their view, without specifying whether the obstacle in question is remediable or irremediable. However, interpretation of the difference, which the legislator omitted to specifically regulate in the said provision, has been correctly established in a notable court case. 

    Namely, in the Decision of the Commercial Court of Appeals No. Pž 7711/2015 dated 17 December 2015 the court expressed the view that if there are any irremediable procedural obstacles, the court is not obliged to enable the plaintiff to state their view on rejection of the claim, since by no action of the plaintiff, and particularly not by stating their view, can the deficiencies in the lawsuit relating to subject-matter of the dispute be rectified. 

    Therefore, the court is not always obliged in the event of existence of procedural obstacles referred to in Article 294 of the Law of Civil Procedure to previously hold a hearing at which the plaintiff will be able to state their view on rejection of the claim.

    It can be concluded that case law is, through its interpretations, giving true meaning to the provision which is somewhat unspecific, all in the interest of efficiency of the procedure. If any irremediable procedural obstacles exist, holding a hearing would have no purpose, but would instead cause unnecessary procedural delay and increase overall costs in a situation where a plaintiff is in a hopeless position, given that there are no actions it could take to impact on the conditions resulting in rejection of its claim. On the other hand, if the procedural obstacles are remediable (for instance if the claim is unintelligible), holding a hearing would be useful both to the plaintiff and to the court, since the plaintiff would be able, instead of filing a new (intelligible) claim and paying again court fees, to address deficiencies of its claim, whereby the procedure would be continued. 

    Based on the above, we can conclude that case law in the matter at hand, which has indeed enabled the symbiosis of the two most important principles, finds its justification in achieving the ideal balance between the principle of efficiency and the argumentation principle of civil procedure. Although at first glance it seems to contradict the principle of argumentation, by differentiating between remediable and irremediable procedural obstacles the court is in fact striking a balance with the argumentation principle. It gives priority to the principle of efficiency by defining irremediable procedural obstacles on one hand, while, on the other hand, it also gives priority to the argumentation principle by defining removable procedural obstacles.

    By Djordje Novcic, Partner, Milica Zarkic, Associate, and Katarina Zivkovic, Associate, JPM Jankovic Popovic Mitic, a member of TLA.