Category: Serbia

BDK Advokati has advised A1 Srbija on its acquisition of Conexio Metro from Madison Debt Holdings. Kinstellar advised the sellers.

A1 Srbija is a member of the Telekom Austria AG group.

Conexio Metro operates the fiber-optic network of the former Targo Telekom. 

According to BDK Advokati, the acquisition strengthens A1 Srbija’s network by adding 300 kilometers of fiber-optic cables, thereby providing access to more than 42,000 households.

The BDK Advokati team included Senior Partner Tijana Kojovic, Partner Jelena Hrle, Senior Associate Djordje Zejak, Associate Jelena Skoric, and Junior Associate Petar Eric.

The Kinstellar team included Partner Radovan Grbovic, Managing Associates Mina Sreckovic and Mario Kijanovic, and Associates Djordje Ilijasevic, Vuk Vuckovic, and Jelisaveta Folic.

The Assembly of the Serbian Chamber of Commerce (“SCoC”) recently adopted the Code of Practice for Advertising by Wholesale and Retail Traders of Food Products (“Code”), which entered into force on January 1, 2025.

The purpose of the Code is to support wholesale and retail traders of food products in the Republic of Serbia in advertising and to regulate compliance with ethical principles and fundamental advertising standards. By implementing the Code in practice, the following objectives are intended to be achieved:

1. Increase consumer trust in advertising and marketing communications,
2. Provide effective solutions to consumer protection issues from unethical advertising,
3. Reduce the need for enforced application of applicable regulations, etc.

The Code is formally intended to define ethical principles and rules to assist traders in advertising, but its fundamental objective is to achieve a higher level of consumer protection by defining general advertising requirements.

Law on Consumer Protection and Law on Advertising

The law governing advertising regulates behaviors and types of advertising that are prohibited (deceptive and covert advertising, encouraging harm to the health and safety of the message recipient, etc.), white the Law on Consumer Protection, among other things, prescribes traders business practices considered unfair (disturbing the economic behavior of the average consumer, deceptive business practices, aggressive business practices, etc.).

On the other hand, the Code defines the fundamental advertising ethical principles as a form of interaction between traders and consumers, with a particular emphasis on the sector of food product trade, presenting a set of rules that combine the provisions of the previously mentioned laws.

It should be noted that any provisions of the Code that are in conflict with the laws governing advertising and protection of consumers, other regulations, or the Code of Business Ethics are null and void.

Who is Obligated to Apply and Adhere to the Code?

The obligation to apply and adhere to the Code applies to all wholesale and retail traders of food products in the Republic of Serbia who have accepted it by signing the Statement of Compliance with the Code, which is an integral part of the Code.

Terms

Unlike the Law on Consumer Protection, the Code defines a consumer as any individual whose opinion and judgment advertising may be influenced by advertising. Hence, an individual acquires the status of consumer simply by interacting with an advertisement message, i.e., before purchasing a product or receiving a service.

A trader is defined as any trader in food products, wholesale and retail, on the territory of the Republic of Serbia, who is a member of SCoC and signatory to the Statement of Compliance with the Code.

An advertisement message is a notification that forms the content of advertising, regardless of the form, method, or medium through which it is transmitted. The subject of the advertisement may be any product, service, business activity, or practice of the advertiser.

General Advertising Requirements

Advertising must adhere to principles of truthfulness, fairness, decency, and honesty, and conducted responsibly with respect to the personality and interests of consumers.

I. Truthfulness in advertising

• deceptive advertising is not permitted (transmitting the information in a vague, incomplete, incomprehensible, ambiguous, or untimely manner, misleading consumers, or influencing their economic behavior).
• an advertisement message must not omit information necessary for consumers to make an informed decision. Furthermore, when assessing the extent of information provided to consumers, the communication medium used to disseminate the information is also taken into account.
• data and claims in the advertisement message must be verifiable, meaning that the advertiser must be able to substantiate them with evidence at any time.

II. Fairness in advertising

• advertising must not misuse, exaggerate, or otherwise take research or survey results, scientific terminology or vocabulary, statistical data, or other publicly available information out of their original context.
• Interestingly, it is prohibited to use certain legally required product attributes, such as “antibiotic-free,” “GMO-free,” and similar terms, for advertising purposes, as this creates the impression that other products lack these attributes.

III. Decency in advertising

• an advertisement message must not contain statements, expressions, sounds, or visuals that would violate general standards of decency, nor should it include elements that demean human dignity.
• advertising must not belittle, discredit, expose to contempt, or mock any individual, group of individuals, business entities, organizations, industries, products, advertisements, brands, trademarks, or any other entity not specifically mentioned here.

IV. Honesty in advertising

• advertising must not be conducted in a way that abuses the consumer’s trust or takes advantage of their lack of experience, professional knowledge, understanding, or gullibility.
• an advertisement message must not use the appeal to fear, nor abuse the average consumer’s sense of fear, nor manipulate consumer prejudices and superstitions.

Below, we highlight some of the special requirements for advertising:

• advertisement messages must not lead consumers to attribute disproportionately higher utility value to a product than its actual value.
• an advertisement message must not use any superlative, especially terms like “best,” “cheapest,” “fastest,” “highest quality,” “first choice,” “number 1,” and similar, without clear and credible evidence of the suitability and truthfulness of such claims, such as citing relevant studies, statistics, or other sources that support these claims and relate to the specific subject of the advertisement.
• products cannot be advertised as “free of charge” if the consumer bears any other cost apart from the actual delivery, shipping, or postage fees.
• an advertisement message must not, through its general appearance, presentation, use of slogans, visual presentation, music, or sound effects, imitate or resemble a recognizable advertisement message of another advertiser.

Violation of the Code and Procedure before the Court of Honor

In the case of a violation of the Code, traders have the right to initiate proceedings before the Court of Honor if they believe that another trader has violated the provisions of the Code, by submitting a complaint to the Court of Honor’s prosecutor.

If, by final decision, the Court of Honor determines that the trader is responsible for violating business customs and business ethics due to non-compliance with the Code, they are obligated to comply with the imposed measure and refrain from using the same or similar advertising methods in the future.

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 Minja Mucic, Junior Associate, PR Legal

Karanovic & Partners has promoted Milica Filipovic, Marko Culafic, and Sava Draca to Partner.

All three were appointed to Partner within the Corporate & Commercial practice group.

Filipovic joined Karanovic & Partners in 2011 as a Junior Associate and was promoted to Attorney at Law in 2014 and Senior Associate in 2018.

Culafic joined Karanovic & Partners in 2016 as a Junior Associate and became an Associate in 2018 and a Senior Associate in 2021.

Draca has been with the firm since 2014 when he joined as an Associate. He was promoted to Senior Associate in 2019.

The Ministry of Finance has adopted the Rulebook on interest rates considered to be in line with the “arm’s length” principle for 2025. The Rulebook was published in the Official Gazette on February 28 and will enter into force on March 8.

Compared to 2024, the changes are as shown in the table below:

For banks and financial leasing providers:

• Short-term credits in RSD – decrease from 5.02% in 2024 to 3.92% in 2025;
• Long-term credits in RSD – decrease from 5.16% in 2024 to 0.81% in 2025;
• EUR credits and credits indexed in EUR – increase from 4.31% in 2024 to 4.59% in 2025;
• USD credits and credits indexed in USD – increase from 5.02% in 2024 to 5.26% in 2025.

For other companies:

• Short-term loans in RSD – increase from 7.57% in 2024 to 8.01% in 2025;
• Long-term loans in RSD – decrease from 8.30% in 2024 to 8.24% in 2025;
• Short-term EUR loans and loans indexed in EUR – increase from 6.12% in 2024 to 6.41% in 2025;
• Loan-term EUR loans and loans indexed in EUR – increase from 6.23% in 2024 to 6.79% in 2025;
• Short-term USD loans and loans indexed in USD – increase from 8.20% in 2024 to 8.31% in 2025;
• Loan-term USD loans and loans indexed in USD – decrease from 4.25% in 2024 to 3.40% in 2025;

By analysing the differences in interest rates, we conclude that long-term lending within business groups in dinars and US dollars is less tax-advantageous in 2025, with a sharp drop in the tax rate especially for banks and financial leasing providers (from 5.16% last year to 0.81% this year for dinars, and from 4.25% to 3.40% in the case of the US dollar).

Short-term lending in dinars with related parties is also less tax-advantageous for the banks and financial leasing providers. In all other cases, in 2025, slightly higher interest rates will be recognized as interest rates ” arm’s length”.

Of course, banks and financial leasing providers, as well as all other companies, have the option to apply the general rules on determining the transaction price on the “arm’s length” principle, instead of applying the interest rates prescribed by the rulebook, and then to use the interest rates thus determined for the purposes of the transfer pricing rules.

By Nikola Djordjevic, Partner, JPM Partners

The recent 30-day lawyer strike has sent ripples across Serbia’s legal and business environment, disrupting key judicial and administrative functions and raising concerns about prolonged instability. Schoenherr Partner Igor Zivkovski discusses the strike’s impact, investor sentiment, as well as a promising corporate bond program, and the evolving regulatory framework as Serbia navigates a period of uncertainty.

“The strike has disrupted the entire legal and business ecosystem, creating uncertainty in the market,” Zivkovski begins. “It affects representation before public bodies, courts, and notaries, which is a major component of legal work in Serbia. While client advisory and transactional work continue, many lawyers rely on court representation for their livelihood, and the prolonged disruption puts their financial stability at risk,” he explains.

This disruption follows an earlier suspension of work in January, a move that garnered significant support from the Bar Association,” Zivkovski adds. “By backing the protest movement, the Bar Association has emphasized the need to address long-standing challenges within the legal system, reflecting the profession’s broader commitment to meaningful reforms.”

As for public opinion, Zivkovski goes on to say that some support the ongoing movement while others are frustrated by the delays. “Regardless, it is clear that the next steps taken by both the government and the legal community will be crucial. This moment presents an opportunity for meaningful change, but if the issues remain unresolved, we could face prolonged instability.”

Focusing on how this uncertainty impacts foreign investment, Zivkovski says that Serbia continues to attract foreign investors, primarily due to competitive business costs, strategic location, and overall ease of doing business. However, “the ongoing administrative and judicial challenges have drawn investors’ attention to the broader political and economic landscape. While the investment climate remains stable, ensuring predictability and transparency will be important for maintaining Serbia’s attractiveness for future investments.” Zivkovski believes that the way systemic issues are addressed in the coming months will be key to maintaining investor confidence. 

Aside from the strike, Zivkovski underlines a promising initiative on the part of the Ministry of Finance – the corporate bond issuance program. “The program aims to stimulate companies to issue corporate bonds by covering a portion of the costs and providing legal and technical support. The first issuance of these green corporate bonds is scheduled for March and has already been approved by the Serbian Securities Commission. According to the Ministry of Finance, nine more companies are preparing to issue bonds under the same framework,” he reports. “This initiative is diverse, transparent, and efficient, offering long-term economic benefits to companies, investors, and the broader Serbian economy. If successfully executed, the program could enhance liquidity, improve access to capital, and promote stronger corporate governance practices,” Zivkovski outlines.  

Finally, Zivkovski reports that there are no significant legislative changes in motion. “Given the current political situation and the absence of a fully functional government following the Prime Minister’s resignation in late January, we are in a wait-and-see mode.” Until a new government is in place and operational, Zivkovski indicates that it is unlikely that any major legislative initiatives will take shape. “The next few months will be crucial in determining how the political landscape evolves and what legislative priorities emerge,” he concludes.

The right to equal pay for the same work or work of equal value is one of the fundamental rights of employees, protected by both domestic legislation and international standards. In Montenegro, this right is regulated by the Labor Law, while judicial practice contributes to its interpretation and application. Furthermore, the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union plays a significant role in shaping the legal framework, providing guidelines for the protection against discrimination in terms of wage equality.

Legal Framework

The previous Labor Law that was in force before the adoption of the currently valid Labor Law, provided the principle of equal pay in Article 77, paragraph 2, ensuring that a male or female employee was entitled to equal pay for the same work or work of equal value performed for the employer. This legal provision aimed to protect employees exclusively in cases of gender discrimination. However, Article 99, paragraph 2 of the current Labor Law stipulates that employees are guaranteed equal pay for the same work or work of equal value. Work of equal value is defined as work requiring the same: (i) level of education or professional qualification, (ii) degree of responsibility, (iii) level of skills, (iv) working conditions, and (v) work performance. Although wage disparity is often associated with gender discrimination, it is important to emphasize that the principle of equal pay, as defined in the current Labor Law, is significantly more complex.

Employees’ Rights in Case of a Violation of the Right to Equal Pay for the Same Work (or Work of Equal Value)

Pursuant to Article 99, paragraph 3 of the Labor Law, an employee who believes that their right to equal pay for the same work or work of equal value has been violated, has the right to compensation for damages in the amount of the unpaid portion of their salary. This means that the lawsuit would be based on seeking compensation for material damages arising from the employment relationship in the form of the difference between the plaintiff’s salary and the salaries of employees in comparable positions. A lawsuit may also include a request to annul the employer’s decision or agreement that contradicts the principle of equal pay for the same work or work of equal value, in accordance with paragraph 4 of the cited article.

If discrimination is based on any legally prescribed grounds, which is often the case in practice, the existence of discrimination is examined using the so-called discrimination test. The court will assess whether: (i) there is less favorable treatment towards the person claiming discrimination (e.g., unequal pay), (ii) the different treatment is based on personal characteristics, and (iii) the treatment differs compared to another person or group of persons who do not have those personal characteristics.

If the employee (plaintiff) provides the court with facts that at least suggest the existence of direct or indirect discrimination, the burden of proving that discrimination did not occur shifts to the employer. 

Criteria for Determining Work of Equal Value

Working in the same jobs can be considered work of equal value; however, work of equal value is also considered to be a job of equal importance in different workplaces. The criterion of “equal importance” is assessed based on key elements necessary for performing a specific job, such as the required level of education, job complexity, working conditions, and degree of responsibility. Work skills are considered different if employees possess different training, levels of knowledge, autonomy in work, and experience necessary for particular positions, which directly affects job performance quality. Therefore, when evaluating wage inequality, one of the necessary conditions is that the compared jobs must be comparable, meaning that the work performed in different positions must align in terms of these key elements.

Court of Justice of the EU issued a ruling on June 26, 2001, in C-381/99 in which it raised questions concerning the principle of equal pay for men and women, regarding the difference in remuneration paid by the employer – a bank – to the claimant and her male colleague. It was decided that, although the two disputed positions were initially considered work of equal value, the claimant’s male colleague performed more significant functions, as he was responsible for important clients and had the authority to enter into binding contractual obligations on behalf of the bank. This authority was not granted to the claimant, who had less contact with clients, which explains why she received a lower salary supplement compared to her male colleague. One of the conclusions reached by the Court of Justice of the EU in this ruling is that when an employer differentiates employees’ pay, they are obliged to justify this difference objectively. Accordingly, a higher degree of responsibility associated with certain positions constitutes an objective criterion for differentiating employees’ salaries.

A justified difference in wages can also be explained by different working conditions. For example, companies operating a chain of supermarkets may experience higher sales in coastal areas during the summer due to a significant increase in the number of tourists. As a result, employees working on the coast bear a greater degree of responsibility since increased sales volume leads to a higher workload and a greater risk of errors. Since, in such a scenario, employees in different regions perform essentially the same work for the same employer but under significantly different working conditions, an objective criterion for wage differentiation may exist without violating the principle of equal pay. As another example, an employer who has waiters employed in two hotels (one with 3 stars and the other with 5 stars) may justify different salaries based on the different working conditions and the level of service required in these two hotels. On the other hand, the difference in hotel categories would not affect the working conditions of an accountant, meaning that the employer would be obliged to pay accountants in both hotels the same salary, provided that other criteria are met.

It is important to emphasize that the principle of equal pay for the same work or work of equal value is not merely a matter of fairness but also a legal obligation for employers. Compliance with this principle helps prevent potential disputes with employees and establishes a transparent pay system based on objective criteria. From the employees’ perspective, implementing this principle ensures protection against discrimination and fosters motivation through a sense of fair compensation for their work.

Given that the burden of proving the justification for wage differences rests with the employer, the need for clear and consistent wage policies is further highlighted. Finally, in the modern business environment, adherence to legal regulations is not just an obligation but also a strategic advantage that contributes to company stability and sustainability, strengthening employee trust and overall market competitiveness.

By Marija Zivkovic, Partner, and Mina Coguric, Associate, JPM & Partners

At the end of 2024, the Ministry of Mining and Energy announced the second auction for wind and solar power plants. The deadline for applying for participation in the auctions is 05.02.2025. year. After consideration of all applications and bids, the entire capacity offered at the auctions for wind farms (300 MW) and for solar power plants (124.8 MW) was successfully allocated.

At the auction for the allocation of the market premium for wind farms, seven companies took part and demanded a total of 458.13 MW. At the auction, the capacity was allocated among 5 companies. Bela Anta 2, Alibunar 1 and 2 and Crni Vrh are the power plants that were allocated the entire requested capacity, while to Jasikovo power plant was partially allocated capacity. The lowest price offered at auctions for wind farms was 53.59 EUR/MWh (Bela Anta 2), while the price offered for Jasikovo power plant was 68.25 EUR/MWh.

At the auction for the allocation of the market premium for solar power plants, there was greater interest, where 31 companies participated for 34 power plants and a total of 378.94 MW was requested. The capacity was allocated among 5 companies, of which 4 received the entire required capacity, while the B2 Sunspot 2 power plant was allocated part of the required capacity. The largest quota was allocated to the Solarina power plant in the amount of 105 MW. The lowest price offered at auctions for solar power plants was 50.90 EUR/MWh (Vemi Sun 2), while the price offered for the B2 Sunspot 2 power plant was 58 EUR/MWh.

Compared to the first auctions for solar power plants, it is concluded that the interest in the allocation of the market premium is at a significantly higher level, bearing in mind that at the first auctions, 25.2 MW of the 50 MW quota was allocated, while at the second auctions the demand significantly exceeded the offered capacity.

By Jelena Gazivoda, Senior Partner, Nikola Djordjevic, Partner, and Marko Mrdja, Senior Associate, JPM & Partners

The European Commission has introduced a new legislative package aimed at simplifying sustainability and investment regulations. In the latest Competitiveness Compass we recently covered, the Commission outlined its strategy to enhance the EU’s economic prosperity and competitiveness. Known as Omnibus I and Omnibus II, these reforms are designed to cut administrative burdens, enhance business competitiveness, and maintain the EU’s commitment to sustainability goals. The key areas affected include the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), and the InvestEU Regulation. By streamlining compliance, the EU hopes to make regulatory obligations more manageable while still upholding environmental and social governance (ESG) objectives.

Revising the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)

In our recent article, we discussed the announced CBAM reforms and their implications in detail.  A key change is that small importers, accounting for 90% of the total, are now exempt from CBAM obligations. This is achieved by introducing a cumulative annual threshold of 50 tonnes per importer.   This exemption relieves smaller businesses from additional regulatory burdens while ensuring that CBAM remains effective in addressing 99% of the emissions in scope.

The Omnibus reforms also simplify emission calculations and reporting requirements.  By making compliance more straightforward, the EU aims to maintain the effectiveness of CBAM while reducing complexity for businesses.

The EU has introduced new anti-circumvention measures to prevent regulatory abuse.  These safeguards ensure that companies do not exploit loopholes to bypass CBAM requirements, strengthening the long-term credibility of the mechanism.

While these changes reduce administrative burdens for smaller importers, they may also introduce risks.  Larger businesses may restructure their trade flows to avoid CBAM obligations, undermining the policy’s effectiveness.  The EU must remain vigilant to prevent unintended consequences and ensure CBAM continues to drive meaningful emissions reductions.

Reforming Sustainability Reporting (CSRD and EU Taxonomy)

The Omnibus reforms significantly reduce the number of companies required to comply with CSRD reporting.  Now, only large businesses with more than 1,000 employees must adhere to these regulations, removing 80% of previously included entities.  This shift helps smaller enterprises avoid excessive compliance costs and redirects sustainability efforts toward organizations with the most significant environmental impact.

Additionally, reporting obligations originally set for 2026 and 2027 have been postponed until 2028.  This delay provides businesses with additional time to prepare and ensures a smoother transition.  By extending the timeline, the EU acknowledges the complexity of sustainability reporting and the need for organizations to develop appropriate internal processes before full implementation.

EU Taxonomy reporting will now be mandatory only for the largest companies, while others can choose to report voluntarily.  This change balances regulatory oversight with flexibility, allowing smaller businesses to engage with sustainable investment practices without unnecessary pressure.  A financial materiality threshold has also been introduced for the Taxonomy reporting to eliminate non-essential disclosures, ensuring that reporting focuses on financially significant sustainability metrics.

These adjustments should significantly reduce complexity and compliance costs, particularly for SMEs.  Nonetheless, certain concerns remain.  Limiting the scope of CSRD reporting may weaken ESG transparency.  Investors could face difficulties assessing sustainability efforts across different market segments, and the reduced number of reporting templates and sector-specific standards might limit the availability of valuable sustainability data.

Simplifying Sustainability Due Diligence Requirements (CSDDD)

Companies must now focus their due diligence efforts on direct business partners rather than the entire value chain.  This change simplifies compliance and reduces the administrative burden of tracking indirect suppliers.

Due diligence assessments, previously required annually, will now occur every five years.  By reducing reporting frequency, businesses can allocate resources more effectively while still maintaining oversight of sustainability risks.  It remains to be seen how this will impact the efficiency of responses to emerging risks.

The Omnibus reforms also remove EU civil liability conditions from the directive, leaving enforcement to national laws.  While this provides Member States with flexibility in implementation, it may result in some differences in legal standards and compliance approaches across EU jurisdictions.

The implementation deadlines for CSDDD have also been pushed back.  The transposition deadline is now 2027, and application begins in 2028.  This provides businesses with additional time to adjust compliance frameworks and prepare for new sustainability obligations.

Reforming the Investment Framework (InvestEU and EFSI)

The EU is reinvesting past project returns to unlock an estimated €50 billion in public and private investments.  By recycling financial gains from previous initiatives, the Commission aims to increase available funding for new sustainability projects and economic resilience efforts.

Reporting requirements for financial intermediaries and SMEs are being reduced, resulting in an estimated €350 million in cost savings.  This simplification allows businesses to focus on growth and innovation rather than administrative compliance.  By easing reporting burdens, the EU hopes to improve accessibility to investment programs for SMEs.

Participation in EU-backed investment programs is also becoming easier for Member States.  By streamlining procedures and increasing accessibility, the EU encourages broader participation from national governments and private investors. These changes help align investment initiatives with sustainability and economic growth priorities.

These reforms aim to channel more capital into innovative and sustainable sectors, strengthening EU competitiveness.

Omnibus Reforms: Implications for Businesses in the Western Balkans

The Western Balkans, as an aspiring region for EU accession and economic integration, will experience notable ripple effects from the Omnibus reforms.  Many businesses in the region export goods to the EU and are part of supply chains for European companies, making these legislative changes particularly relevant.

With CBAM’s simplified framework, Western Balkan exporters, particularly in carbon-intensive industries such as steel and cement, may face new compliance challenges. While smaller importers are now exempt, larger businesses in the region must ensure that their emissions reporting aligns with EU standards to maintain market access. Companies in these sectors should proactively invest in emissions-reduction technologies to stay competitive in the long run.

The reduced scope of CSRD reporting may benefit smaller Western Balkan businesses that interact with EU-based corporations.  Previously, many SMEs in the region faced sustainability data requests from larger EU firms under trickle-down reporting obligations.  The new framework shields many of these companies from unnecessary administrative burdens while still allowing voluntary participation in sustainability disclosures, which could help them attract EU investment.

Investment opportunities under the revised InvestEU framework could also provide new financing options for businesses in the region.  As the EU looks to mobilize additional funds for sustainable projects, Western Balkan enterprises with strong ESG credentials may find it easier to secure funding for green initiatives.  However, to fully benefit, businesses must align with EU sustainability standards and demonstrate commitment to decarbonization and responsible business practices.

Conclusion

The European Commission’s reforms aim to make sustainability and investment regulations more efficient.  By reducing administrative burdens and delaying compliance deadlines, businesses—especially SMEs—gain much-needed relief.  That said, the EU should carefully balance simplifications with long-term sustainability goals.

For businesses in the Western Balkans, these reforms present both challenges and opportunities.  While regulatory compliance may become more manageable, companies must proactively adapt to evolving EU standards to maintain competitiveness.  Those that align with sustainability priorities will benefit from new investment and trade opportunities within the European market.

By Bogdan Gecic, Founding Partner, Gecic Law

Serbian Energy Regulatory Agency (AERS) has adopted the Tariff methodology for access to the natural gas transmission systems, which is now harmonized with the Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/460 of 16 March 2017 establishing a network code on harmonised transmission tariff structures for gas (NC TAR).

The Tariff methodology differentiates three entry points in a transmission system and three exit points from a transmission system, with 50% : 50% split of approved income between the entry and exit points: (i) entry points from another transmission system, (ii) entry point productions and (iii) entry point gas storage; (i) exit point domestic consumption, (ii) exit point interconnector and (iii) exit point gas storage.

It determines the following multiplicators: (i) 1.1 for quarterly capacity, (ii) 1.2 for monthly capacity, (iii) 2 for daily capacity and (iv) 2.2 for intraday capacity; while the seasonal factors are distributed for each month, with the lowest factor of 0.48 for monthly, daily and intraday capacity in June and highest factor of 2.08 for the same capacities in January. For reverse flow capacity, the tariffs shall be 10% of the corresponding capacity for the physical flow capacity.

The whole Tariff methodology can be found in the Official Gazette 12/2025, which was published on 7 February, which is the day when the methodology entered into force so that the transmission system operators which apply the regulated prices are obliged to apply rules set out by the methodology for the next determination of the prices.

By Jelena Gazivoda, Senior Partner, Nikola Djordjevic, Partner, and Marko Mrdja, Senior Associate, JPM & Partners

NKO Partners has advised GreenChem on the acquisition of Adeco Blue from Adeco. Sole practitioner Natalija Basic advised the sellers.

GreenChem Holding is a member of the Hartenberg Group. It deals in the manufacture and sale of AdBlue – used for catalytic applications in the automotive sector. 

Adeco is a Serbian company that produces motor oils, industrial oils, and specialized liquids for motor vehicles.

According to NKO Partners, the transaction included the purchase of 100% shares in the Serbian company Adeco Blue based in Novi Sad and the acquisition of the entire distribution portfolio pertaining to AdBlue products. 

The NKO team included Partner Djordje Nikolic and Senior Associates Vojin Babovic and Benjamin Graca.