Category: Serbia

The rise of social media has transformed marketing strategies across the globe, and Serbia is no exception. Influencers – individuals with significant social media followings – play a pivotal role in promoting products and services. The influencer marketing industry has experienced remarkable growth over the past few years. As of 2024, it is projected to reach a market size of $24 billion, up from $21.1 billion in 2023. However, with this growing industry comes the necessity for regulation to ensure transparency, consumer protection, and ethical practices.

A rising trend in the EU shows an increasing demand for regulating influencer marketing. Although the EU lacks specific laws in this sense, except for national-level laws such as the French Influencer Act[1], it aims to influence the influencers using existing legislation, helping them navigate the complicated network of regulations with the Influencer Legal Hub. Similar to the EU, Serbia does not yet have influencer-specific regulations, but the existing legal framework implicitly covers influencer marketing activities. Namely, influencer marketing is governed primarily by general advertising and consumer protection laws. The key pieces of legislation include the Law on Consumer Protection^[2] and the Law on Advertising^[3]. These laws set the standards for advertising practices, including those conducted via social media.

Law on Consumer Protection focuses on safeguarding consumers from deceptive practices. It mandates transparency and honesty in all marketing communications. Influencers must ensure that their endorsements are genuine and not misleading, thereby protecting consumers from false claims. This law introduces the term “trader” as a legal entity, an entrepreneur or a natural person who acts on the market as part of his business activity or for other commercial purposes. For instance, traders are influencers who sell their own merchandise or provide services such as training, master classes, etc. Except for avoiding deceptive practices, traders are responsible for conformity of goods and services provided. Furthermore, considering the fact that influencers can generate high income, their economic activities may be regarded as taxable by the Tax Administration. 

On the other hand, influencers that deal specifically with marketing of brands that are not their own are susceptible to the same obligations as traders pursuant to the Law on Consumer Protection, having in mind they are acting for a trader. 

Law on Advertising stipulates that all advertising must be truthful and not misleading. While influencers cannot be regarded as advertisers according to this law, they can be considered as transmitters of advertising messages because of their editorial control of social networks. Influencers, therefore, are required to clearly disclose any material connections they have with brands they promote. This includes sponsorships, gifts, and other forms of compensation. This can be done through hashtags such as #sponsored, #ad, or #gifted, ensuring that such disclosures are clear and noticeable. The aim is to inform followers that the content is a paid promotion.

Failure to comply with the abovementioned laws can result in misdemeanour liability for both the influencer and the brand, whereas sanctions may be more severe in case of additional obligations of traders. However, even though the letter of the law is advanced and harmonized in Serbia as with other modern jurisdictions, it is not as easy for the authorities to conduct supervision and sanction irregularities. Even when laws and sanctions are in place, enforcing them can be difficult due to the sheer volume of content and influencers online. Lack of resources, both human and technological, can hinder enforcement efforts. Moreover, identifying influencers and determining their legal responsibilities can be challenging, especially when dealing with pseudonymous accounts or influencers operating across multiple platforms.

Addressing these challenges requires collaboration between policymakers, regulatory bodies, social media platforms, influencers, and other interested parties. Furthermore, drafting clear and comprehensive agreements between brands and influencers is essential. These agreements should outline the scope of the influencer’s obligations, including compliance with disclosure requirements and adherence to ethical standards. By understanding and adhering to the current regulatory framework, influencers and brands can avoid legal issues and build trust with their audience.

However, nothing is as effective as when an influencer receives a message from Instagram stating that in case of non-adherence to Instagram terms or policies, their accounts will be suspended.

[1] https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000047663185

[2] Zakon o zaštiti potrošača (“Sl. glasnik RS”, br. 88/2021)

[3] Zakon o oglašavanju (“Sl. glasnik RS”, br. 6/2016 i 52/2019 – dr. zakon)

By Katarina Milic, Senior Associate, JPM & Partners

The market for corporate law firms in the Republic of Serbia has undergone significant change.

Over the past ten years, numerous partners from traditionally large corporate law firms have established their own practices, either independently or with other colleagues, leading to an increase in the number of law firms specializing in this field. On one hand, this has resulted in improved service quality and on the other it has influenced on lowering hourly rates, making services more affordable for clients.

As competition intensified, the need for market consolidation in the segment of corporate law firms became inevitable. Over the past and current year, several domestic corporate and IP law firms have formed partnerships with regional firms or have been absorbed by large, globally renowned firms like. Although “Magic Circle” or “Silver Circle” law firms are not yet operating in Serbia, their entry is anticipated in the near future due to the dynamic economy, high economic growth rates, record low unemployment, and improved general living standards.

These new trends are positive, as they will further enhance service quality and necessitate that local law firms specialize in specific areas of business law to provide even higher quality services. Additionally, further market consolidation is expected as a consequence of intense competition and the need for more efficient resource utilization. It is worth noting that a similar trend has been observed in the Serbian banking sector over the past seven years.

By Nenad Cvjeticanin, Partner, Cvjeticanin & Partners

AP Legal has advised Raiffeisen Banka Belgrade on its issuance of MREL-eligible bonds on the Serbian market and their listing on the Belgrade Stock Exchange.

According to AP Legal, “this transaction, which sets [a] new standard for raising MREL-eligible funding in Serbia, attracted significant interest from international financial institutions and local professional investors.”

Last year, in 2023, AP Legal advised Raiffeisen Banka Beograd on banking and insurance operations mergers (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on May 30, 2023).

The AP Legal team was led by Managing Partner Aleksandar Preradovic.

AP Legal did not respond to our inquiry on the matter. 

Editor’s Note: After this article was published, Karanovic & Partners announced that it advised the European Fund for Southeast Europe on its acquisition of the bonds in question. The Karanovic & Partners team included Partner Maja Jovancevic Setka and Associate Dimitrije Ilic.

Additionally, Wolf Theiss announced it advised the IFC on the subscription of RSD 2.3 billion in bonds. The firm’s team included Partner Claus Schneider, Counsels Marko Tesanovic, Katarina Stojakovic, and Nikolaus Dinhof-Renezeder, and Associates Katarina Kracun, Rainer Holweg and Sebastian Prakljacic. 

AP Legal has advised Banka Postanska Stedionica Belgrade on the sale of a EUR 150 million corporate NPL portfolio to KBM ASCO Belgrade.

KBM Asco Belgrade is a Serbian company specializing in the purchase and servicing of distressed assets. 

In 2021, AP Legal advised on Banka Postanska Stedionica’s acquisition of Komercijalna Banka Banja Luka (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on November 10, 2021).

The AP Legal team included Managing Partner Aleksandar Preradovic and Senior Associate Dusan Preradovic.

AP Legal did not respond to our inquiry on the matter. 

In recent years, growing energy demands and environmental concerns have brought nuclear energy back into focus. Its importance lies in producing large amounts of energy while emitting fewer greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. As countries seek sustainable energy solutions, many are turning to nuclear power. However, despite its benefits, nuclear energy faces legal barriers in several countries, including Australia, Austria, Denmark, and Serbia.

Why is nuclear energy banned in Serbia?

In 1989, SFR Yugoslavia passed the Nuclear Power Plants Construction Ban Act, which Serbia later inherited. This act was a response to the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine, then part of the USSR. In 1986, a reactor at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant exploded, causing a massive fire and radiation leak with severe long-term consequences. Many countries reacted by enacting measures to prevent similar disasters, with some opting to ban nuclear energy altogether.

Advances in technology over the past decades have significantly improved the safety of nuclear power plants and waste disposal. As a result, some countries have reduced their opposition to nuclear power and are now considering developing nuclear power plants.

Benefits of nuclear energy

Nuclear energy offers numerous benefits and could help address the emerging energy crisis. It is one of the cleanest energy sources, with minimal environmental risks thanks to modern technology. Nuclear power plants can produce large amounts of energy consistently, regardless of external factors like climate conditions.

With the rise of AI and other technologies, electricity consumption is expected to increase significantly. As the demand for clean energy grows, Serbia is reconsidering nuclear energy. The first step towards this is to remove the legal ban on nuclear power.

The Nuclear Power Plants Construction Ban Removal Bill has been introduced in the legislative process. While this is a step forward, much work remains before Serbia can establish nuclear power plants.

Other barriers for developing nuclear energy

Legal barriers are not the only challenge. Public fear of nuclear power plants persists, and it will take time to overcome this. Educating the population on the benefits and safety of nuclear energy is crucial. Another challenge is the lack of nuclear energy experts, a result of the long-standing ban. Ensuring the safety of nuclear operations requires highly trained personnel. Finally, nuclear energy is expensive. Building and maintaining nuclear power plants and reactors require significant resources.

However, the cost of energy shortages and environmental pollution is much higher.

Conclusion

Amid growing energy needs and environmental challenges, nuclear energy emerges as a promising option. Legal barriers are just the first hurdle in developing nuclear power plants, but they are not the last.

Despite the challenges, the benefits of nuclear energy far outweigh the risks, making it likely that its development will increase worldwide.

By Nemanja Sladakovic, Senior Associate, and Marko Jovic, Associate, Gecic Law

Serbian Minister of Finance issued the Rulebook on interest rates that are considered to be in line with the arm’s length principle for the year 2024 (Rulebook).

Interest rates are applicable by taxpayers in the calculation of corporate income tax for the FY 2024 to compare agreed interest rates on loans with related parties.

Interest rates that are considered to be in accordance with the “arm’s length” principle, prescribed by the Rulebook for 2024 are the following:

1) for banks and financial leasing providers:

1. 5,02% on short-term loans in RSD;
2. 5,16% on long-term loans in RSD;
3. 4,31% on loans in EUR and RSD loans indexed in EUR;
4. 5,02% on loans in USD and RSD loans indexed in USD;
5. 2,80% on CHF loans and RSD loans indexed in CHF;
6. 4,19% on loans in SEK and RSD loans indexed in SEK;
7. 1,88% on loans in GBP and RSD loans indexed in GBP;
8. 2,42% on loans in RUB and RSD loans indexed in RUB;
9. 4,55% on loans in CNY and RSD loans indexed in CNY; 

2) for other companies:

1. 7,57% on short-term loans in RSD;
2. 8,30% on long-term loans in RSD;
3. 6,12% on short-term loans in EUR and RSD loans indexed in EUR;
4. 6,23% on long-term loans in EUR and RSD loans indexed in EUR;
5. 7,54% on short-term loans in CHF and RSD loans indexed in CHF;
6. 8,20% on short-term loans in USD and RSD loans indexed in USD;
7. 4,25% on long-term loans in USD and RSD loans indexed in USD.

The information in this document does not constitute legal advice on any particular matter and is provided for general informational purposes only.

By Branimir Rajsic, Senior Consultant, Katarina Tomic Isailovic, Senior Associate, and Aleksa Tomanovic, Junior Associate, Karanovic & Partners

The European Commission has imposed a hefty EUR 337.5 million fine on Mondelēz International, Inc., the world-famous producer of Oreo, Milka and Toblerone, for restricting cross-border trade of chocolate, biscuits, and coffee products among EU Member States, in violation of EU competition regulations.

Margrethe Vestager, the EU’s competition chief, during the press conference stressed out that this case is a key concern to European citizens, as it is about the price of groceries “in times of very high inflation, where many are in a cost-of-living crisis”.

The European Commission’s investigation, which began in November 2019 with unannounced inspections at Mondelēz premises in Austria, Belgium, and Germany, led to formal proceedings against Mondelēz in January 2021. Three years later, in May 2024, the European Commission concluded that Mondelēz had breached EU competition rules: (i) by entering into anticompetitive agreements or concerted practices aimed at restricting cross-border trade, and (ii) by abusing its dominant position in certain national markets for the sale of chocolate tablets. In other words, the European Commission has found out that Mondelēz, breached both Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

The EUR 337.5 million fine was determined based on the severity and duration of the infringements, as well as the value of Mondelēz’s sales. Mondelēz received a 15% reduction in the fine for cooperating with the Commission and acknowledging its liability.

Anticompetitive Agreements

Mondelēz engaged in 22 anticompetitive agreements between 2012 and 2019. Specifically, Mondelēz restricted seven wholesale customers (so called traders/brokers) from reselling its products across other territories. One agreement even included a provision obliging Mondelēz’s wholesale customer to apply higher prices for exports compared to domestic sales. Furthermore, the European Commission determined that Mondelēz prevented ten exclusive distributors from fulfilling sales requests from other Member States without its prior approval. These practices spanned from 2006 to 2020 and covered the entire EU market.

These parallel trade restrictions isolated national markets, allowing Mondelēz to charge higher prices for its products, which detrimentally impacted consumers and reduced product diversity.

Dominant Position Abuse

The European Commission found that Mondelēz, between 2015 and 2019, abused its dominant position in certain national markets for the sale of chocolate tablets. Specifically, Mondelēz refused to supply a broker in Germany to prevent the resale of chocolate tablets in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, and Romania, where prices were higher. Additionally, Mondelēz ceased supplying chocolate tablets in the Netherlands to prevent their import into Belgium, where it charged higher prices.

These practices prevented retailers from sourcing products in lower-priced Member States, artificially segmenting the internal market and enabling Mondelēz to maintain higher prices, ultimately harming EU consumers. 

The information in this document does not constitute legal advice on any particular matter and is provided for general informational purposes only.

By Bojana Miljanovic Hussey and Bojan Vuckovic, Partners, and Sanja Dedovic, Associate, Karanovic & Partners

Moravcevic, Vojnovic, and Partners in cooperation with Schoenherr has advised Menzies Aviation on a joint venture with Air Serbia. Markovic, Vukotic, Jovkovic advised Air Serbia.

The transaction remains contingent on regulatory approval.

Menzies Aviation is a provider of aviation services, with operations on six continents serving more than four million flights a year and handling over two million tonnes of cargo.

Air Serbia is the national airline of the Republic of Serbia.

According to Schoenherr, “through this joint venture, Menzies Aviation Beograd d.o.o. will provide comprehensive passenger and aircraft ground handling services for Air Serbia at Belgrade Nikola Tesla Airport.”

The Schoenherr team included Partner Jovan Barovic and Associate Andrej Zoric.

The MVJ team included Senior Partners Dusan Djordjevic and Marko Jovkovic, Senior Associate Martina Jovic, and Associates Milica Danilovic and Iva Spasojevic.

Given the complexity of modern legal traffic, the complex economic structures are becoming a standard in today’s business transactions. There is an increase in business activities which include a larger number of participants. Accordingly, disputes involving more than two subjects are occurring ever more often – especially on the international level. In light of this, the ICC International Court of Arbitration even noted an increase in multi-party arbitrations stating that one-third of ICC cases today involve multiple parties.[i]

But is it necessary for all the parties to the dispute to be involved in arbitration from the beginning of the proceedings? Arbitration may involve multiple parties from the beginning or become multi-party at a later stage if an additional party joins the proceedings. Several proceedings which are not all between the same parties may also be joined. Considering the different forms of multi-party dispute resolution mechanisms, this article aims to explore the question when and how may the (third) parties involved in the same economic transaction intervene in an ongoing arbitration. This article further gives an inquiry into different regulations governing the provisions of third-party joinder into an arbitration considering the selected arbitration rules with a focus on different issues which may arise for the parties and the tribunal.

I          Multi-party Arbitration

To understand the joinder mechanism in arbitration, we must first identify the principle of multi-party arbitration. The multi-party arbitration is generally referred as an arbitration which involves more than one party to the either side of the dispute. The multi-party arbitrations are on the other hand also defined as “disputes in which a third party intervenes in an arbitration either on the claimant’s or respondent’s side, as well as disputes involving more than two sides to the dispute, i.e. trilateral or multi-party disputes in which each party defends its own interests that differ from the interests of all other parties”[ii]

These disputes often include a multitude of contracts by which the parties are bound to arbitrate. This does not, however, mean that multi-party arbitration is limited to the case where there are multiple parties already at the time of the conclusion of the contract. Multi-party arbitration may be initiated between the multiple signatories to the contract, or, on the other hand, there may be the extension to non-signatories as additional parties to the original contract.[iii]

It should be noted that one of the main issues the multi-party arbitration may pose is the assessment of all the parties’ willingness to arbitrate, which shall be further discussed below.

II         What is a Third-party Joinder?

Generally speaking, the joinder in arbitration describes a situation in which a non-party to the arbitration intervenes in the proceedings after they have been initiated, as well as the situation when a party to the arbitration joins a non-party during the proceedings.[iv] 

In practice, a joinder in arbitration may be best described in a dispute between a contractor and an employer under a construction contract. In such a dispute, if a contractor should lose the case, he may assert a recovery claim against the subcontractor in the second proceedings. Therefore, it may be beneficial for the subcontractor to intervene in the first proceedings between the contractor and the employer, as it would be hard for the subcontractor to claim that the first proceedings were decided incorrectly in the second proceedings. By intervening in the first proceedings, the subcontractor is able to undertake actions as a party and influence the course of the proceedings.

III         Joinder of third parties in court litigation and arbitration

Considering that the nature of arbitral proceedings may impose difficulties for a third-party joinder, it is important to note the differences of joinder in litigation and arbitration. 

It is generally accepted that the rules regarding the intervention are less limited in litigation than in arbitration.[v] The Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Serbia prescribes that a “person who has a legal interest in one of the parties succeeding in a litigation between other persons may join this party.”, The Civil Procedure Code further stipulates that “the intervener may enter into litigation during the entire procedure until the decision on the claim becomes legally binding, as well as during the procedure continued by declaring an extraordinary legal remedy”[vi] Further, the Code describes that “A party can dispute the intervener’s right to participate in the proceedings and propose that the intervener be refused, and the court can also refuse the intervention’s participation without the parties’ statement if it determines that there is no legal interest of the intervener”[vii]

This demonstrates that the pre-determined set of rules prescribed by law (such as civil procedure codes) offer flexibility to the parties to intervene in the proceedings during the whole course of the proceedings. The parties may also propose for the intervention of a party to be refused, while the court has the final say.

On the other hand, the situation in arbitration is vastly different. Unlike the litigation before the state courts, the arbitral tribunal obtains its power from the private arbitration agreement concluded between the parties. As a result, different set of arbitration rules regulate the joinder of parties in the following manner.

• Who can request a joinder and join the arbitration proceedings?

The principal question the parties face when opting to join an on-going proceeding is regulated as follows.

The two arbitral institutions in the Republic of Serbia, the Permanent Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia and the Belgrade Arbitration Center regulate the joinder of third-parties in arbitration fairly similarly. Both rulebooks prescribe that “a person that has a legal interest to participate in the arbitral proceedings may join one of the parties only with consent of both parties” while the Rules of the Permanent Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia also add “under the conditions and in the manner determined by the arbitral tribunal or the sole arbitrator.”[viii]

The ICC Rules of Arbitration prescribe that “a party wishing to join an additional party to the arbitration shall submit its request for arbitration against the additional party (the Request for Joinder)”.[ix] The date of the receipt of such request for joiner shall then be regarded as date of the commencement of arbitration against the additional party.

The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules on the other hand provide that a third persons may only join the given arbitration if such a person is a party to the arbitration agreement.[x]

These rules demonstrate that due to the consensual nature of arbitration agreement, joining an already ongoing arbitration proceedings requires the consent of all the parties, or in some cases even the condition of even being a signee to the arbitration agreement. 

• At what point in the arbitration can a joinder be requested?

The answer to the question when joinder of third parties may be requested is reflected in the one of the governing principes of arbitration – the equal treatment of the parties. The parties in an arbitration have the ability to influence the constitution of the arbitral tribunal by appointing its arbitrators. The situation, however, might be different when more than two parties are involved.

While the Rules of the Serbian arbitral institutions are silent on the matter and describe only that the arbitral tribunal shall decide on the joinder, the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules stipulate that an additional party may only join the arbitration after the constitution of the tribunal.[xi]

The ICC Rules govern the said subject in an interesting way by allowing the Request for joinder to be submitted before or after the construction of the arbitral tribunal. If a Request for Joinder is made after the confirmation or appointment of any arbitrator, such request “shall be decided by the arbitral tribunal once constituted and shall be subject to the additional party accepting the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and agreeing to the Terms of Reference, where applicable”[xii].

These rules, although regulating the joinder mechanism differently, demonstrate the importance of equality of treatment of parties in arbitration. 

IV          Conclusion

A third party intervening in an arbitration may have a legal interest and also exercise major influence on the proceedings. It is important to note, however, that third parties may also abuse such opportunity and further prolong the proceedings.[xiii] This is why the arbitral tribunal should always closely consider all the relevant facts of the case when deciding on the matter, such as: the identity of an additional party and the parties involved in arbitration, the time a request for joinder is submitted, the consent of all the parties, and most importantly, the fairness of the proceedings and the principle of equality of treatment of parties in arbitration. 

Endnote/References

[i] Priscilla Villa Nova, ICC Institute Training on Complex Arbitrations, ICC Dispute Resolution Bulletin, 2023 Issue 3

[ii] Maja Stanivuković, Međunarodna arbitraža, Belgrade, Službeni glasnik 2013 (p. 201).

[iii] Jiawen Wang, Joinder Mechanism in International Commercial Arbitration: A Trend in the Digital Age?, Springer 2023 (p. 2).

[iv] Lidija M. Zečević, Joinder of third parties In International Arbitration, Strani pravni život, 4/23 (p. 606).

[v] Franco Ferrari / Friedrich Rosenfeld / John Fellas, International Commercial Arbitration A Comparative Introduction, Edward Elgar publishing, 2021, p. 147

[vi] Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Serbia (“Official Gazette of RS” Nr. 72/2011, 49/2013 – Decision SC, 74/2013 – decision SC, 55/2014, 87/2018, 18/2020 i 10/2023 – other law), Article 215.

[vii] Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Serbia (“Official Gazette of RS” Nr. 72/2011, 49/2013 – Decision SC, 74/2013 – decision SC, 55/2014, 87/2018, 18/2020 i 10/2023 – other law), Article 216.

[viii] Rules of the Permanent Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia, Article 36; Rules of the Belgrade Arbitration Center, Article 30.

[ix] ICC Rules of Arbitration (2021), Article 7 (1).

[x] UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2021), Article 17 (5).

[xi] UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2021), Article 17 (5).

[xii] ICC Rules of Arbitration (2021), Article 7 (5).

[xiii] Lidija M. Zečević, Joinder of third parties In International Arbitration, Strani pravni život, 4/23 (p. 613).

By Dusan Zegarac, Associate, JPM & Partners

In an era where social media has become an integral part of daily life, the issue of privacy protection is gaining increasing importance. Typically, social media platforms offer mechanisms to control access to the content which individuals share on their profiles, including the so-called profile “locking”. On the other hand, content on “unlocked” profiles is accessible to an unlimited number of people, allowing anyone who visits a particular profile to view the content created or published by its owner.

Additionally, one of the current topics is the permissibility of publishing photos from “unlocked” profiles of individuals by the media, which are then used to complement articles published in newspapers and on internet portals. In other words, does such behavior by the media constitute a breach of privacy?

This question has quickly become the subject of judicial consideration, and thus the Court of Appeal in Belgrade, in its judgment ref. no. G_ž3 170/23 dated June 1, 2023, expressed its stance on the violation of privacy rights through the publication of photos taken from social media.

The court concluded that the fact that the photos were taken from the plaintiff’s private profile on social media is not crucial, and that their publication in the media constitutes a violation of privacy rights. Furthermore, the court explained that the fact that the photos were published on social media by the plaintiff himself is insufficient because it does not imply that the individuals depicted in them have given consent for their use in other ways or for other purposes.

Legal Framework

The Law on Public Information and Media stipulates that information from private life, including photograph of individuals, cannot be published without the consent of the individual whose private life the information/photograph concerns, if it can be inferred from the publication which individual it is.

An exception exists in situations where the public interest in knowing the information or photograph outweighs the interest in preventing its publication, which the court will assess based on all circumstances of the case.

It is also considered that the public interest outweighs the interest in preventing the publication of information from private life, especially if the individual has intended the information or photograph for the public or has provided it to the media for publication.

Therefore, in the mentioned case, the legislator assumes that by their implicit actions, individuals have consented to the publication of their photograph. However, considering the aforementioned stance of the Court of Appeal in Belgrade, the use of a published photograph in other ways or for other purposes will constitute a violation of privacy rights.

It can be reasonably assumed that this issue will continue to be subject to judicial consideration, particularly in the context of interpreting the legal standard that the photograph is intended for the public, as well as which circumstances should be considered when determining the intent of the person who posted the photograph on their “unlocked” profile.

Conclusion

It is evident that obtaining the consent of the individual is a prerequisite for publishing photographs of the person depicted in them.

The stance of the Court of Appeal in Belgrade implies that such consent cannot be deemed to have been given by implicit actions (publication of a photograph on a social media platform and publicly accessible) because the photograph cannot be used in any way or for any purpose without the explicit consent of the individuals depicted in it.

Moreover, the use of photos taken from social media may also be contentious from the perspective of the photographer’s rights, i.e., copyright protection, which may also be subject to legal action, something that media outlets should also consider.

This article is to be considered as exclusively informative, with no intention to provide legal advice. If you should need additional information, please contact us directly.

By Ivana Ruzicic, Managing Partner, and Borinka Dobrnjac, Senior Associate, PR Legal