Category: Serbia

Gecic Law has advised the Science and Technology Park Belgrade, which was founded in partnership by the Government of Serbia, the City of Belgrade, and the University of Belgrade to facilitate an association between economic, scientific, and educational organizations.

The project, which is meant to support the transfer of knowledge and the development of new technologies and to stimulate growth of the knowledge-based economy will support growing technological development companies and small start-ups.

Gecic Law reports that it “assisted the park with various legal matters in the process of taking over the management of the science park.” Gecic Law Partner Nikola Aksic, lead legal counsel on the matter, stated “the Science and Technology Park is an essential project for Serbia to help stimulate economic growth, teach our youth about entrepreneurship and prevent ‘brain drain’ so that our market be competitive and attractive.”

Gecic Law named Partner Bogdan Gecic believes that “this represents the first functional science technology park in Serbia and will help accelerate the technological development of the country in line with international best practice.” 

Gecic Law reports that “forecasts predict that the park will host approximately 100 high-tech development companies with about 1000 engineers within 3-4 years.”

Stankovic & Partners (NSTLaw) has announced that the Commercial Court in Zajecar has adopted the pre-packaged reorganization plan for the four companies of the RTB Bor Group’s copper mining and smelting complex in Serbia. NSTLaw describes the restructuring, worth EUR 1.2 billion, represents the largest financial restructuring in bankruptcy ever in Serbia.

According to NSTLaw, the adopted plan “is particularly important considering the fact that RTB Group is a company of strategic importance for the Republic of Serbia.”

Creditors in all creditor classes voted to accept the plan with between 70% to 100% of votes in each class, with the following consequences: (1) a write-off of 90% of unsecured claims; (2) rescheduled debt repayment; (3) a debt-to-equity swap for secured creditors; (4) a merger of all four companies with the goal of establishing one integrated system; and (5) the possibility for further development of production and development of new mines with different investment structures.

According to NSTLaw, “this way, after several decades, RTB Group has successfully solved the debt burden issues and created an opportunity for further development, which is important not only for the development of RTB Group, but also of the region where the group is located and development of the Republic of Serbia as a whole.”

NSTLAW and BDO have advised the RTB Group in all phases of the project, preparation of the plan, negotiations with creditors, obtaining of required permits and approvals and representation before the Commercial Court.

SOG / Samardzic, Oreski & Grbovic acted as local Serbian counsel to the Danaher Group regarding Serbian aspects of the spin-off of the Fortive Corporation as a company independently traded on the New York stock exchange.

SOG describes Danaher as “one of the most prominent global science and technology companies with products and brands spanning from sophisticated research equipment, disinfection technologies to diagnostic and other medical appliances,” and reports that the Fortive Corporation “was made through bundling of Danaher`s Test & Measurement segment, Industrial Technologies segment (excluding its Product Identification platform) and Retail/Commercial Petroleum platform.”

SOG advised and represented the Danaher Group on all aspects relating to its business interests in Serbia, from corporate and commercial to tax compliance aspects.

Zivkovic Samardzic has successfully represented Vojvodjanska Banka a.d. Novi Sad before Serbia’s Supreme Court of Cassation in civil proceedings related to a bank guarantee issued by the bank’s legal predecessor to Moscow Investment Bank (MIB) as collateral for a USD 3 million loan granted to petrochemical plant HIP Pancevo.

According to Zivkovic Samardzic, Vojvodjanska Banka — a member of the National Bank of Greece Group — was defendant in litigation initiated by PFHC Establishment, a company from Liechtenstein to which receivables related to the USD 3 million loan originally granted by MIB to HIP Pancevo, were assigned. Once the original loan was granted, the legal predecessor of Vojvodjanska Banka issued a bank guarantee as collateral.

In the course of proceedings, according to Zivkovic Samardzic, “it was established that MIB had returned the original of the guarantee with an explanation that the transaction was completed, but later on had sent a swift message demanding the guarantee back and claiming that it was returned by mistake of an employee.”

The Commercial Court in Pancevo initially rejected all PFHC Establishment claims in 2010. However, that decision was quashed and a retrial ordered by the Commercial Appellate Court upon plaintiff’s appeal in 2013.  Zivkovic Samardzic was retained to represent Vojvodjanska Banka at the commencement of the retrial. The first instance judgement in the retrial was once again in favor of Vojvodjanska Banka, but this time it was confirmed by the Commercial Appellate Court in September 2015, and now finally by the Supreme Court of Cassation.

In essence, Zivkovic Samardzic reports, “the Supreme Court of Cassation confirmed the standpoint of Zivkovic Samardzic lawyers that the form prescribed for interbank communication concerning bank guarantees was not followed by the Moscow Investment Bank’s swift message sent to the defendant after the original of the guarantee was returned, and for those reasons the swift message produced no legal consequences.”

The Zivkovic Samardzic team representing Vojvodjanska Banka was led by Partner Milos Milosevic and Senior Associate Marko Trisic. 

Zivkovic Samardzic has announced its successful representation of Serbia’s 021 broadcaster in a copyright infringement case resulting in what the firm calls “a landmark decision … reinterpret[ing] the current events exception in Serbian copyright law.”

021 — a broadcaster and news site operator in Novi Sad, Serbia — was sued for copyright infringement by photographer Nebojsa Radosavljevic for allegedly using a photograph without proper authorization, after the broadcaster had used Radosavljevic’s photograph as part of a report on a traffic accident which left seven people injured in the city of Kragujevac. The photograph was taken several minutes after the accident, on the site. 

According to Zivkovic Samardzic, “in its decision, the Court of Appeal in Belgrade reinterpreted the current events exception to copyright infringement from Article 43 of the Serbian Copyright Act in a way resembling the Article 5.3(c) of the EU Copyright Directive … [which] allows for exception in cases where use of the copyrighted work is connected with the reporting of current events, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose of the reporting.”

The firm reports that, “previously, Serbian courts, when construing the current events exception, played rather safely and kept closer to the original wording of the Article 10bis(2) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which mentions explicitly, when allowing the current events exception, ‘works seen or heard in the course of the [current] event’ only, and not works related to the current event. “

The Court of Appeal in Belgrade underlined the informatory purpose of 021’s reporting on the “serious trafic accident in the city of Kragujevac” and concluded that the photograph, since taken immediately after the accident and on the very scene of the accident, was “an integral part of the reported current event.” Thus, the Court of Appeal concluded, “the defendant was authorized to reproduce the photograph and make it available to the public, without the author’s permission and without paying remuneration.” 

The Zivkovic Samardzic team representing 021 at the Higher Court in Belgrade and in appellate proceedings at the Court of Appeal in Belgrade was led by Associate Milos Stojkovic.

KPMG Serbia and its associated law firm, Marjanovic Law, acted as lead transaction counsel to the Government of Republic of Serbia during the two-year privatization procedure of Zelezara Smederevo. The Asset Purchase Agreement was signed on April 18 and the transaction closed on June 30, 2016.

The KPMG Serbia team was led by Partner Boris Milosevic and KPMG’s legal team was led by Legal Head Mladjan Marjanovic. The Marjanovic Law firm agreed to provide some insight into the deal for CEE Legal Matters.

The privatization procedure started in the second half of 2014 and the KPMG and KPMG legal teams first represented the Government of the Republic of Serbia during its strategic partnership agreement negotiations with US steel producer Esmark Inc. – negotiations that began at the beginning of 2015 and ended on February 17, 2015 with the two sides failing to agree on the commercial terms of the potential strategic partnership. The subsequent step in the privatization effort supported by the KPMG teams was the negotiations between the Republic of Serbia and HPK Engineering B.V. which resulted in the latter being appointed to run the steel mill until publishing a new privatization. Finally, the team assisted the Serbian Government during its negotiations for the asset sale and purchase agreement with HeSteel China – one of the largest steel producers in the world – that successfully closed on June 30, 2016.

According to Marjanovic, the privatization of Zelezara Smederevo was performed as an asset deal. The purchase price achieved within the public tender procedure was EUR 46 million, with the buyer further promising to invest over EUR 300 million within the next five years.

Commenting on the deal, Marjanovic said: “This project was rather important and challenging for our team. We have provided the client with comprehensive legal services that are grounded in actual business practices and succeeded in solving the most complex and demanding legal problems during the transaction. We thank Bogdan Gecic and his team from Gecic Law for their excellent support regarding the state aid and competition law issues that arose during the transaction.” 

In addition to Marjanovic, the KPMG legal team included Nevena Kovacevic and Andrea Klimovic.

Zivkovic Samardzic has announced that it has supported South Central Ventures (SCV) with a EUR 700,000 investment in City Expert, a Belgrade-based startup that, according to the firm, “has gained traction rapidly with its innovations and use of technologies in real estate sale and rental sector.”

SCV manages the Enterprise Innovation Fund (ENIF), a venture capital fund focusing on highly specialised, innovative, small and medium-sized enterprises in the Western Balkans. Investors in the ENIF include the European Commission, the European Investment Fund, the EBRD, Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau, together with institutional and private investors from the Western Balkans. The EUR 40 million fund is dedicated primarily to early stage and growth investments and is intended to fuel international business expansion and growth.

This is the second investment Zivkovic Samardzic has advised on SCV recently, following its March 2016 investment in dryTools (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on March 16, 2016), 

The Zivkovic Samardzic team that advised SCV on its investment in City Expert included Partners Branislav Zivkovic and Slobodan Kremenjak, Senior Associate Igor Zivkovski, and Associate Ana Popovic.

Serbia’s Prica & Partners has announced that former Junior Partner Milos Vulic has been promoted to Partner at the firm.

Vulic specializes in Real Estate, Bankruptcy Liquidation and Restructuring, Litigation, and Arbitration. According to Prica & Partners, “Milos represents local and international companies in bankruptcy, reorganization and liquidation procedures. He has dealt with some of the largest and high profile bankruptcy, pre-packaged and out-of-court restructuring cases in Serbia and Montenegro …. he also regularly represents corporate clients in commercial litigation cases.” At present, the firm explains (and as reported by CEE Legal Matters on March 24, 2015), he is “a key legal adviser for International Finance Corporation in restructuring of concern Farmakom and its subsidiaries.”

Vulic graduated from the Faculty of Law at Belgrade University in 2006 and joined Prica & Partners in 2007. He was promoted to Junior Partner in 2014 (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on March 17, 2014).

Zivkovic Samardzic has advised South Central Ventures (SCV) on its acquisition of a 12.8% stake in dryTools, a startup based in Novi Sad, Serbia. The value of the transaction was EUR 300,000.

DryTools operates in the software developing tooling sector, helping other start-ups and software consulting companies cut costs and reduce software development time.

According to Zivkovic Samardzic, SCV, which has offices in Belgrade, Zagreb, and Skopje, “is a skilled and experienced professional team managing the Enterprise Innovation Fund (ENIF), a venture capital fund focusing on highly specialized, innovative small and medium-sized enterprises in the Western Balkans.” Among the investors in the ENIF are the European Commission, the European Investment Fund, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau, and other institutional and private investors from the Western Balkans. The EUR 40 million fund is dedicated primarily to early stage and growth investments. Within the fund’s ‘seed pocket,’ EUR 1.5 million is allocated for investments of up to EUR 100,000 per company. The majority of the fund is allocated for early stage and growth investments of up to EUR 3 million per company. These investments are intended to fuel the international business expansion and growth of the most promising tech startups that can show traction and prove their potential to “make it big.” 

The Zivkovic Samardzic team that advised South Central Ventures on its investment in dryTools — the first ever investment in SCV’s portfolio — was led by Partners Branislav Zivkovic and Slobodan Kremenjak and Senior Associate Igor Zivkovski. 

When contacted by CEE Legal Matters, Slobodan Kremenjak reported that his team was unaware of external counsel for dryTools, if any, as “we were in contact with dryTools management only, and not their legal advisers.”

The draft of Serbia’s new Trademark Act strives to remove shortcomings in the existing trademark legislation and further harmonize Serbian laws with those of the European Union.

General

Trademark protection in Serbia is currently regulated by the Trademark Act (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”, nos. 104/09 and 10/13). Recognizing the need to further adjust and harmonize Serbian legislation with the European Union’s IP legal framework, as well as to remedy the identified shortcomings of the existing Trademark Act, Serbia’s legislator has prepared a Draft for a new Trademark Act [the “Draft Law”].

Opposition system introduced

Key innovation envisaged by the Draft Law concerns the introduction of a trademark opposition system, which will replace the current ex officio examination of the relative grounds for refusal. This essential change will bring Serbian legislation more inline with what is already a well-established standard for most of the country’s neighbouring states, other European countries, and the community trademarks (by virtue of Council Regulation (EC) no. 207/2009).

Under the Draft Law, Serbia’s Intellectual Property Office will conduct formal examinations solely on absolute grounds, while the substantive examination on relative grounds will rest within the discretion and attentiveness of rightholders. In accordance with the proposed change, the holder of an earlier trademark or a well-known trademark, licensee or the holder of an earlier right to a name or image, copyright or industrial property right will be able to file opposition based on relative grounds for refusal within three months from the application publication date.

More effective court protection

Further changes envisaged under the Draft Law come as a consequence of the obligation to comply with Directive 2008/95/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States related to trademarks. The aim is to establish a more efficient trademark protection system, eliminate the identified ambiguities and facilitate the application of civil procedure law provisions in order to promote more effective protection in infringement cases. The proposed changes include more precise definitions of possible claims, as well as clearer and more systematic provisions on interim measures and effective measures on securing evidence.

Crucial revision of the statute of limitation

Another key amendment concerns the statute of limitation for bringing a claim against trademark infringement under the civil law track. The earlier solution was rather defective and not viable, as it prescribed that the statutory deadline for bringing an action is 3 years from the moment the rightholder became aware of the infringement and the infringer (subjective deadline) and not longer than 5 years from the date the infringement first occurred (objective deadline). Based on such definition, rightholders were unable to prevent and oppose ongoing infringements if the five-year deadline had already passed (even if the rightholder had no knowledge of the infringement). The Draft Law seeks to remedy this major flaw by removing the word “first” from the statute of limitations definition, thus ensuring that a claim for ongoing infringements cannot become outdated.

Timeframe for  Draft Law’s adoption still open 

Although the Draft Law has been up for public discussion since 3 December 2015 and was expected to enter the parliamentary procedure at some point in January 2016, its current status remains unknown. The adoption procedure seems to have been postponed for now and the Draft Law remains open for comments and suggestions. Currently,  the Intellectual Property Office is expected to host at least one more roundtable for IP experts before producing a final draft. The adoption of the Draft Law may, therefore, be expected by the middle of 2016.

By Andrea Radonjanin, Attorney at Law, and Petar Luka Barisic, Associate, Schoenherr