Category: Serbia

Gecic Law, working with Shibolet & Co, has advised the Paskal Group on “the successful submission of the first CBAM reports from Israel in accordance with the EU’s new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism Regulation.”

The project was part of a larger collaboration, according to the firm, that supported Israeli aluminum, steel, and iron exporters in “addressing the challenges of a new era in environmental accountability.”

The Paskal Group is a greenhouse accessories and solutions company.

According to Gecic Law, the importers “successfully submitted their first CBAM reports, covering the fourth quarter of 2023, by the January 31, 2024, deadline.  The firms will now be able to offer regular quarterly reports, with a significant shift to start in January 2026.  From then on, payments for actual greenhouse gas emissions of imported goods into Europe will begin.”

The Gecic Law team included Counsel Branko Gabric and Associates Nikola Ivkovic and Vasilije Boskovic.

MMD Advokati has advised Mayekawa Europe on its acquisition of Em Dip Pro Team. Vukovic & Partners advised Tatjana, Svetozar, and Vukasin Petrovic on the sale.

Mayekawa Europe operates in the gas compression and refrigeration equipment market.

Em Dip Pro Team produces pressure vessels, separators, coolers, and filters and is based in Belgrade.

According to MMD Advokati, “this transaction represents a continuation of the expansion of the Mayekawa group operations in Serbia and is certainly a huge boost for Mayekawa’s operations in the region.”

The MMD Advokati team included Partners Veljko Dostanic, Miodrag Klancnik, and Rastko Malisic.

The Vukovic & Partners team included Partner Dejan Plamenac and Senior Attorneys at Law Igor Joksovic and Marijana Momic.

Milos Vuckovic has been appointed as the new Managing Partner of Karanovic & Partners, taking over from Darko Jovanovic who has been leading the firm for the past two years. Milos Jakovljevic has been promoted to Senior Partner. Additionally, the firm announced that Senior Partner Marjan Poljak will assist Vuckovic in his new role.

According to Karanovic & Partners, “with an extensive 27-year tenure within the firm, Milos [Vuckovic] has vast experience in advising clients on all aspects of corporate & commercial, real estate, and energy law, with a particular focus on renewables and mining. Milos oversees the cooperation with the Macedonian lawyers we cooperate with and also runs the Nordic Desk.”

“Milos [Vuckovic] has unique regional experience in advising clients on corporate governance, compliance, privatization, M&A, contracts and commercial agreements, joint ventures, spin-offs, restructuring, takeover bids, and many more,” Jovanovic commented. “His strong commitment to clients and high regard among colleagues showcase our shared dedication. With a focus on prioritizing clients and supporting our team, we’re confident in the promising times ahead.”

“I am honored to step into the role of Managing Partner and to continue the successful leadership path set by Darko,” Vuckovic added. “With our teamwork, I am optimistic about the future.”

Jakovljevic, a new Senior Partner at the firm, has been with Karanovic & Partners since 2008, when he joined as an Associate. He was promoted to Senior Associate in 2011 and then to Partner in 2016.

“From the very beginning, Milos [Jakovljevic] lived up to our firm’s values, which we all strive for – that the clients are front and center, that people are our strength, that we are one team, and that integrity is everything,” new Managing Partner Vuckovic said of the appointment. “The value he brings to the table – new business, people’s development, hard work, and always taking care of the joint interest is immense and we are looking forward to seeing Milos contribute further.”

Processing personal data through video surveillance and GPS tracking is a widespread practice that is used for a variety of purposes. Nonetheless, this is a matter that is not clearly defined by law, and there is no consensus practice that would provide guidelines for data processors on how to achieve legal compliance.

Due to ambiguous regulations, uncertainties and errors are common in practice, posing potential problems and risks for both data subjects and data controllers (in the form of possible fines).

Based on our experience and (unofficial) consultations with representatives of the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Protection of Personal Data (hereinafter referred to as the “Commissioner“), we came up with short guidelines intended to help data controllers: 1) identify situations when this type of data processing is allowed in the first place, and 2) implement the required procedure under Serbian data protection laws:

Video surveillance

Because video surveillance involves an intensive processing of personal data, it is necessary to ensure that the purpose of processing personal data cannot be achieved in another, less invasive or less comprehensive manner.

Video surveillance is typically used to ensure the safety of people or property. In this case, the Risk Assessment Act prepared under the Law on Private Security (“Official Gazette of RS”, no. 104/2013, 42/2015, and 87/2018) should provide an answer to the question of whether the safety of persons and/or property can be ensured in another, less invasive way (other than video surveillance). According to unofficial practice expressed in the Commissioner’s opinions, if the risk assessment act deems it necessary and justified, video surveillance and data processing may be installed for the protection of persons and property.

Other conditions must be met in addition to the stated legal basis for processing personal data. In particular, video surveillance equipment must be installed and maintained by a licensed entity that has the necessary permits issued by the Ministry of Interior (for the installation of a technical protection system – video surveillance). Furthermore, because video surveillance entails systemic surveillance of individuals using new technologies under Article 54 of the Personal Data Protection Act, it is necessary to assess the impact of processing on the protection of personal data (DPIA), and if such assessment indicates that processing will create a high risk when it comes to personal data protection, it will be necessary to obtain the Commissioner’s prior opinion. The premises where the cameras are installed must be marked as subject to video surveillance, and the recordings must be kept for at least 30 days.

In some other cases, such as monitoring employees’ performance, video surveillance probably cannot be established because the results of employees’ work can almost always be monitored in another, less invasive way, such as insight into work results and output by the managers. 

GPS tracking

Monitoring of company vehicles using GPS devices is very widespread in practice, and it is often used for monitoring of execution of work tasks by employees.

The processing of personal data through GPS tracking for this purpose is not allowed if the purpose (monitoring the fulfillment of work tasks) can be achieved in another, less invasive ways, which in this particular case would be written records, signed delivery notes, and other documentation that can confirm that the employee delivered the goods to a certain place, etc. Bearing in mind that to verify the fulfillment of work assignments, written documentation can always be set up, GPS tracking for this purpose is almost always considered excessive and thus illegal.

However, there are also certain situations where GPS vehicle tracking can be legally established. Namely, according to the Commissioner’s practice, GPS vehicle tracking can be established to locate the vehicle in case of theft or to determine the circumstances in the event of a traffic accident (e.g., speed of the vehicle). However, in this case, insight into the results of GPS vehicle tracking can only be allowed in case of vehicle theft or a traffic accident, and never for any other purpose (real-time vehicle tracking, etc.). It is also possible to establish GPS vehicle tracking to manage the risky behavior of the driver concerning traffic regulations (monitoring the speed of the vehicle in relation to the permitted speed on a given road section or monitoring the fastening of the seat belt, etc.) and sending the driver to additional training, which some companies in Serbia are already doing. However, even in this case, the GPS data cannot be used to track the movement of the vehicle in real-time or whether the vehicle was in certain locations that the user of the vehicle was supposed to visit as part of his work tasks.

As in the case of video surveillance, here too it is necessary to assess the impact of the processing operation on the protection of personal data, and potentially obtain the prior opinion by the Commissioner. Moreover, GPS tracking equipment be installed by licensed entities, and persons who will use vehicles must be informed in detail about the processing of personal data by GPS vehicle tracking devices.

By Damjan Despotovic, Milorad Glavan, Partners, DNVG Attorneys

In German case law the stance was taken recently that questions on a test undertaken by a specific individual do not constitute personal data within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The court’s position is that these questions, therefore, should not be included in the copy of data issued or provided in accordance with Article 15(3) of the GDPR (right to access to personal data undergoing processing).

Factual background

A candidate took an entrance exam at a university for admission to medical studies. After the test, he sent an email to the university’s competent authority requesting a copy of his file, in accordance with Article 15(3) of the GDPR, citing the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union C-434/16 (Peter Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner), as the file contains his personal data.

In response to the request, the candidate received an overview of the personal data undergoing processing, including a copy of the entrance test with his answers and notes, while the questions themselves were redacted.

The candidate then requested a copy of the test with uncensored, visible questions, to which he did not receive a response. He subsequently filed a lawsuit claiming that although the questions themselves do not constitute personal data, the selected answers reflect personal choices, and therefore the questions should also be considered personal data.

On the other hand, the university defended its response to the lawsuit by arguing that the candidate’s request was fully met by providing a copy of the data with redacted questions, emphasizing that not only do the questions not constitute personal data, but their disclosure could lead to their misuse by the candidate.

Position of the court

The court sided with the university, finding that the plaintiff, i.e., the candidate, does not have the right to an uncensored copy of the test questions, as the questions in question do not constitute personal data within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the GDPR.

The court particularly emphasized that the purpose of the right of access established by Article 15 of the GDPR is to inform about the processing of personal data and to verify the lawfulness of the processing, and therefore it is irrelevant that the plaintiff seeks access to questions for interpreting the results. Additionally, the court pointed out that the plaintiff does not have the right to a copy of the questions in terms of preserving confidentiality, stating that the questions constitute a trade secret of the defendant university under the German Trade Secrets Act.

Right of access to data in domestic regulations

The Law on Personal Data Protection of the Republic of Serbia (Official Gazette of RS no. 87/2018) (“Law”) provides that the data subject has the right to request information from the controller about whether it processes his personal data, access to such data, and the information prescribed by law.

Additionally, if personal data is transferred to another country or international organization, the data subject has the right to be informed about the appropriate safeguards relating to the transfer.

Furthermore, the Law stipulates that the controller is obliged to provide the data subject, upon his request, with a copy of the data it processes. The controller may request reimbursement of necessary costs for making additional copies requested by the data subject. If the request for a copy is made electronically, the information is provided in the usual electronic format, unless the data subject has requested otherwise.

However, the Law explicitly states that the exercise of the rights and freedoms of other individuals cannot be compromised by exercising the right to receive a copy, and the aforementioned provisions do not apply to processing carried out by competent authorities for specific purposes.

The Law also provides for the limitation of the right of access, stating that it may be restricted, in whole or in part, only to the extent and for the duration necessary, and represents a proportionate measure in a democratic society, respecting the fundamental rights and legitimate interests of the data subject, in order to achieve the effects prescribed by law.

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, Partner, and Lara Maksimovic, Senior Associate, PR Legal

Harrisons has advised the EBRD on its inaugural EUR 50 million loan to Serbia’s AIK Banka for on-lending to local small and medium-sized enterprises.

According to the firm, Serbian SMEs “will benefit from better access to finance for their growth, green ambitions, and greater competitiveness. Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of the Serbian economy and improving their access to finance is vital for Serbia’s sustainable and inclusive economic growth.”

“The investment is also geared towards the development of Serbia’s banking sector through the exchange of knowledge and experience between the bank and its new partner,” Harrisons reported. “The EBRD will share its international expertise with AIK Banka, which in turn will on-lend in line with the bank’s environmental and social standards. AIK Banka commits, under this agreement, to invest a minimum of 30% of the funds in Serbia’s green economy.”

The Harrisons team was led by Principal Mark Harrison and Consultant Ines Matijevic-Papulin and included Associate Mina Zeljkovic.

On 29 December 2023, the Government of the Republic of Serbia adopted the Regulation on financial support for dual education (“Official Gazette of the RS”, No. 120/2023), which entered into force on 6 January 2024 (hereinafter: the Regulation).

The Regulation further regulates financial support for dual education through aid to schools and the economy for the purpose of educating students in Shortage occupations. This support is granted through the allocation of funds in two manners:

1. subsidizing a part of the learning-by-doing remuneration paid by employers to students enrolled in dual educational profiles, where students are educated for shortage occupations ;
2. supporting schools for enrolling students in dual educational profiles, where students are educated for Shortage occupations.

The competence for determining the type and amount of financial support, the conditions for applying for them, announcing and conducting the contest, as well as for determining the list of Shortage occupations in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned Regulation, belongs to the Office for Dual Education and NQFS (hereinafter: the Office).

Subsidizing part of the remuneration for learning-by-doing

The first type of financial support for dual education allows employers to claim payment for a part of the remuneration to students attending dual educational profiles for Shortage occupations, up to a maximum of 50% of the net amount of the minimum remuneration for learning-by-doing, with applicable contributions. However, should unallocated funds persist in the fund following the conducted contest, subsidies can be granted in a higher amount than specified.

The Regulation mandates that employers must obtain the following documents to be able to participate in the contest:

1. Confirmation of the fulfillment of the conditions for learning by doing;
2. Concluded agreement or pre-agreement on dual education with school;
3. Confirmation from the Tax Administration that all due obligations have been paid;
4. Proof of settled financial obligations to students for employers who already have students in learning-by-doing;
5. Additional proof of the fulfillment of the conditions for applying for subsidies provided by the Contest.

Support to schools for enrolling students in dual educational profiles where students are trained for Shortage occupations

The second type of financial support for dual education allows schools to enroll all first-grade high school students in the corresponding dual educational profile, thereby ensuring additional income in nine equal monthly installments determined by the contest, in addition to the legally prescribed remuneration for learning-by-doing. 

The agreement for the allocation of funds for this type of support is concluded between the school, the Office, and the student, or their parent or other legal representative.

Students are expected to regularly attend classes and achieve positive results. Otherwise, they may lose the right to receive individual subsidy installments.

Reporting

Regarding both types of financial support, it should be noted that the Regulation imposes an obligation on employers or schools to report to the Office on the use of dedicated subsidy funds by submitting periodic and final financial reports within contractually specified deadlines.

In case of determined misallocation of funds, the Office will terminate the contract and demand the return of transferred funds. Employers or schools will be obligated to return the funds with statutory interest.

Conclusion

Through this Regulation, the Government of the Republic of Serbia aims to encourage a larger number of students to choose dual educational profiles, thereby overcoming the problem of a shortage of workforce in Shortage occupations such as locksmiths, machine operators, bakers, chefs, electricians, mechanics, etc. At the same time, with the realization of the purpose of the Regulation, entrepreneurs in deficit activities will also be able to benefit, in a way that they will find the labor force that is currently lacking in the labor market in the Republic of Serbia more easily and favorably.

By Marko Ilic, Senior Associate, and Dimitrije Stepanovic, Associate, JPM & Partners

Despite their undeniable awareness of importance of intellectual property (IP) for business success, many multinational companies overlook the fact that IP laws vary between countries. This has motivated us to write this article as a memento of IP that can be generated by employees. It explains the general regime related to use of such intellectual property and suggests which legal mechanisms are available to employers in safeguarding their legitimate interests in relation to IP.

Employees may generate the following intellectual creations in the course of their employment:

• inventions (products or processes resolving technical problems in any field of technology: physics, engineering, pharmacy, biotechnology, etc.);
• industrial designs (3D or 2D features of industrially produced products and goods such as electronic devices, cars, furniture, etc.), and
• works of authorship (such as literary works, music, film, paintings, software and databases).

Having in mind IP’s increasing importance for business success, both employers and employees should regulate ownership and mutual rights and responsibilities over IP generated in the course of employment much before its creation.

Ownership and commercial exploitation of industrial property generated by employees

As types of industrial property, inventions and industrial designs are deemed to be generated in the course of employment if:

• created by an employee performing the employment tasks or in accordance with a special act of the employer regulating research and development; or
• created during the employment relation or in the period of 1 year following the termination of employment provided that the invention is related to the employer’s business activities or is created with material-technical means, information and other conditions provided by the employer or created as a result of the professional training provided by the employer to the employee.

Ownership over inventions generated in the course of employment is regulated by Patent Law (“Official Gazette of the RoS”, nos. 99/2011, 113/2017, 95/2018, 66/2019 and 123/2021), whereas provisions of the mentioned law regulate ownership over industrial designs accordingly. As a general rule, right to patent protection belong to the employer, unless otherwise contractually agreed between the employer and the employee. In return, the employee keeps moral rights related to the invention and right to special compensation, subject to fulfilment of certain legal conditions. 

If the employer decided to file patent application and the application turns to be successful, the employee is entitled to special compensation, on top of his salary. Likewise, the employee is entitled to special compensation if the employer decides not to file patent application for reasons involving employer’s production confidentiality interest. Under the Patent Law, criteria for determining the amount of compensation, the method and maturity of the compensation are determined under a general act of the employer or employment or other contract between the employer and the employee. In absence thereof, the amount of compensation will be determined by the court depending on the commercial exploitation of the invention/industrial design and contribution of the employee, which is unreasonable to leave to the open judgement of the court. 

Ownership and commercial exploitation of works of authorship generated by employees

Mutual rights, duties and responsibilities between employers and employees relating to works of authorship generated in the course of employment are regulated under the Law on Copyright and Related Rights (“Official Gazette of the RoS”, nos. 104/2009, 99/2011, 119/2012, 29/2016 and 66/2019).

As a general rule, if the work of authorship is created by an employee performing his employment tasks, the employer is entitled to publish and commercially exploit such work within his business activity for a period of 5 years from the date of completion of the work, unless envisaged otherwise under the employer’s general act or the employment contract. The only exception to this rule is related to creation of software, where the commercial exploitation right belong to the employer permanently.

However, commercial exploitation of the work of authorship (software excluded) can be extended in favour of the employer permanently, by virtue of the employer’s general act or the employment contract.

In respect to compensation, the author employee has right to special compensation on top of his salary depending on the effects of the commercial exploitation of the copyright. Again, exceptionally, software author is entitled to the mentioned special compensation only if such right is contractually granted by the employer.

Available IP safeguarding legal mechanisms

All the above mentioned suggests that regulations leave substantial room for more detailed contractual regulation of mutual rights and responsibilities over IP generated in the course of employment. Collaboration with employees may lead to new and valuable intellectual creations, but when it does the employer needs to be in a position to commercially benefit from it. The bigger chance of highly valuable innovation, the more robust contractual regulation of mutual rights, duties and responsibilities in relation to IP is recommended in order to avoid disputes over the right of commercial exploitation of IP generated in the course of employment and the amount of special compensation for the inventor/author.

Certainly, strong non-disclosure covenants in the employment contract are advisable, especially in case of use of invention without filing patent application. It’s worth mentioning non-compete clause which can prohibit employees from becoming direct or indirect competitors to the employer, during the course of employment, as well as for a period of 2 years after termination of employment. In some instances, breach of the non-compete may be documented much easier than misuse or infringement of the IP.  

Finally, once ownership over IP generated by the employee is properly ensured, it is of great importance to protect it either by registration or through effective measures for preserving its confidentiality. Registration of inventions and industrial designs is highly recommended for implementing exclusive commercial exploitation of such IP, as well as for adequate legal protection against the infringers.

By Miodrag Klancnik, Partner, MMD Advokati

Former Partner Dragoljub Sretenovic has been promoted to a Senior Partner position and former Counsel Bisera Andrijasevic has been promoted to a Partner position with BDK Advokati.

Serbia’s Sretenovic, a banking and finance expert, has been with BDK Advokati since 2012, joining as an Associate. He became a Senior Associate in 2018, a Counsel in 2021, and a Partner in 2022.

Montenegro’s Andrijasevic is a competition law, life sciences, and healthcare law specialist. She has been with the firm for nine years, joining as an Associate in 2015, becoming a Senior Associate in 2019, and a Counsel in 2021.

“The promotions reflect our appreciation of commitment, ambition, willingness to continuously develop oneself professionally, and individual’s tangible contribution to the whole firm,” Managing Partner Tijana Kojovic commented. “Both Dragoljub and Bisera exemplify the highest standards of professional excellence and dedication to the firm as a whole. This year is BDK’s 20th anniversary and I am very proud of the breadth of practices we have developed and the team we have created with patience and persistence.”

AP Legal has advised a syndicate of banks including Eurobank Direktna, NLB Komercijalna Banka, and OTP Bank Srbija on an EUR 34.5 million loan to Hillside.

Hillside is part of the Merin Group, a real estate development and asset management company.

According to AP legal, “the proceeds of the loan will be used for financing the development of the Silva Vidikovac residential and commercial complex with a gross area of approximately 40,300 square meters.”

The AP Legal team included Partners Aleksandar Preradovic and Aleksandra Jovic and Senior Associate Dusan Preradovic.