Category: Serbia

Corporate reputation is an organisation’s most valuable intangible resource and may be defined as the public perception of the company and how it operates. It has its monetary expression and influences financial and social capital as well as market share. It can be positive and negative. Reputation is an essential aspect of any business. In today’s digital age, a company’s reputation can be easily tarnished through websites, social media, online reviews and news articles.

Reputational damage can occur in many ways:

• due to unethical business practices;
• violation of duties and conflict of interest of the current or former employees and directors;
• poor customer service;
• data breaches;
• environmental issues;
• or any other negative event that puts the company in a bad light.

The consequences of reputational damage can be severe for a business entity. It can lead to:

• decreased revenue;
• reduced share price;
• difficulty in attracting and retaining employees;
• loss of board and shareholders’ trust;
• diminished funding and partnership opportunities;
• negative effect on the company’s supply chain.

Moreover, reputational damage can take a long time to recover from, and the process can be costly. The company may have to invest significant resources into rebranding, launching a public relations campaign or implementing new policies and procedures to regain the trust of its stakeholders.

Civil law protection in case of unlawful, intentional or malicious damage to company’s reputation

1. Pecuniary damages

The company may claim pecuniary (economic) damages, which refer to the actual monetary losses incurred by the business. It is reflected in lost profits, lost sales and other financial losses that can be attributed to the negative publicity. These damages include the actual decrease in assets or increase in liabilities at the moment of the claim, as well as future lost profit. The case must be supported with adequate evidence and it may be challenging to prove the exact damages before the court, as a causal relationship must be established between reduced profit / outstanding losses and the actions of the wrongdoer.

2. Non-pecuniary damages

Non-pecuniary damages refer to the intangible non-monetary losses incurred by the business, such as damage to reputation, loss of goodwill and loss of brand value. These damages can have a significant impact on the long-term success of the business. However, Serbian companies may request compensation of non-economic damages only under Article 41 of the Trade Act in case of unfair market competition.

If the competing company did not act with the aim of damaging the reputation of another company, prevailing on the market in any way or gaining benefits or earning extra profit, or the damage occurred by the action of individuals, non-pecuniary damages cannot be claimed before the court.

An additional issue is determining the amount of non-pecuniary damages, as they are difficult to quantify. The case law in Serbia has yet to establish harmonised criteria on this matter. The court will assess the significance, duration and intensity of the reputational damage, the effect it had on the business acting as a plaintiff, and the purpose of the compensation.

Companies are not entitled to claim non-pecuniary damage in accordance with Article 200 of the Obligations Act, which stipulates that non-pecuniary damage may only be claimed for physical and mental pain suffered. As companies cannot suffer mental pain, according to the current case law, they cannot claim non-pecuniary damages for reputational damage in accordance with this Article.

In accordance with the Public Information and Media Act, in case of defamation, it is also not possible to claim non-pecuniary damages if the media published harmful prohibited information related to the company.

3. Punitive damages

Unlike in some other countries, where punitive damages may be awarded to the injured party where the reputational damage was caused by intentional or malicious behaviour, such as defamation or slander, these kinds of damages are not recognised by the law in Serbia. Therefore, an offender may only be punished in accordance with criminal law, misdemeanour law or the commercial offences procedure.

Appropriate preventive measures

Companies must be extremely careful and conduct all necessary measures to avoid situations in which their reputation may be compromised. Appropriate preventive measures include: ethical approaches and practices; business transparency; social responsibility; partnership and employee engagement; developing a good online image and media presence; agility in responding quickly and effectively to any negative online content to prevent the damage from escalating; providing effective customer support; and taking legal action in case damage occurs.

Conclusion

It is important to revise the regulations in Serbia to better safeguard companies’ reputations. The current legal process can be lengthy and costly, and ultimately it is unclear whether the company could ever compensate the damages suffered, even if the claim is proven grounded before the court. The Act on Liability of Legal Entities for Criminal Offences has already stipulated the criminal responsibility of the companies, recognising their own “personality” and liability separated from its representatives. The European Court of Human Rights has recognised the possibility for companies to be awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage, where consideration should be given to the company’s reputation (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 35, ECHR 2000‑IV).

The safeguarding of one’s reputation often goes hand in hand with protecting the freedom of speech of others. Striking the right balance between the freedom to express oneself and the responsibilities associated with exercising this freedom is crucial. This balance should be subject to legal formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties that are deemed necessary in a democratic society. These measures aim to safeguard the reputation or rights of others and to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information (as stated in Article 10, paragraph 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights). This is particularly important when actions are undertaken with malicious intent, causing harm, lacking foundation, and without proper endorsement through legitimate procedures by authorised entities.

By Tijana Levakov, Attorney at Law, Schoenherr

BDK Advokati has advised Vision Gaming Holding and the other Digital Revolution shareholders on the sale of Digital Revolution to Singapore-based Fibers PTE.

Digital Revolution, together with Digital 1, operates the Circus Bet online web-gaming site, founded in 2016.

Fibers PTE is a technology solutions company.

The BDK Advokati team included Senior Partner Vladimir Dasic and Junior Associate Andjela Susljik.

Serbia is experiencing positive economic growth driven by strong foreign direct investments, while developing a growing focus on energy security and the transition to renewable energy sources, according to Gecic Law Partner Hristina Kosec.

“In the second quarter, GDP has shown a positive growth of 1.7% compared to the previous year, and it is projected to increase further to 2.3%,” Kosec begins. “Estimates suggest that 2023 may end showing improved economic conditions, although this outcome is uncertain due to factors such as inflation, the situation in the EU due to Ukraine, and increased prices of electricity and heating.”

According to Kosec, a key development is that “from October 1, the transitional period for the EU’s new CBAM regulation begins and extends until 2026. This will affect EU exports in several industry sectors, especially iron and steel, constituting approximately 1% of our GDP. Consequently, important decisions regarding this and other affected sectors must be promptly addressed.”

Kosec emphasizes that FDIs “have had a significant impact, with an impressive EUR 4.1 billion in investments last year, and we expect a similar figure this year due to factors like skilled labor, incentives, and land availability. Serbia has become an attractive destination for investors due to its favorable incentive schemes, including tax benefits and employment-related advantages. We’ve also recently streamlined procedures with changes in immigration laws to encourage the migration of qualified workers, offering simplified permits and easier entry conditions for specific groups like students and researchers. These changes enhance our labor market and economic competitiveness.” According to Kosec, the Open Balkan Initiative will also likely enhance the flexible movement of goods and labor within the region.

Other noteworthy updates, according to Kosec, include adjustments to those incentives that impact FDI. “The thresholds for these incentives in the manufacturing sector have been slightly raised, from EUR 300,000 to 500,000,” she says. “Additionally, there is a concerted effort to promote investments in regions beyond Belgrade, specifically underdeveloped areas, particularly in southern Serbia. These incentives can potentially reach up to EUR 5,000 per employee or job created, primarily fostering job growth and industrial development in these regions.”

“Previously, real estate regulations also posed challenges for foreign investors due to complicated land acquisition and building permission processes,” Kosec adds. “However, with recent changes came a simplified procedure – having a use permit easily translates to ownership, reducing risks and speeding up transactions.”

Regarding energy, Kosec notes that the production is stable, although the country still relies heavily on coal. “In line with the EU goals, the target is to achieve more than 40% renewable energy by 2040,” she says. “To work toward this goal, we introduced a package of energy acts in 2021 and, this year, a new one aimed at addressing grid balancing issues.”

“One of the challenges facing the energy sector is insufficient storage capacity, which can be quite expensive to develop,” Kosec further notes. “Consequently, the government is actively seeking strategic partners for the construction of five new solar plants, with a total capacity of 1,000 megawatts AC and dedicated storage facilities. This underscores the increasing complexity of energy projects and the growing interest from foreign investors. Additionally, to enhance energy security, we are engaged in natural gas storage agreements with Hungary, with the hope that the improved autumn weather will enhance our preparations for the winter.”

Product liability for products containing artificial intelligence (AI) is a complex and evolving legal area that combines traditional product liability principles with the unique challenges posed by AI technology. Product liability refers to the legal responsibility of manufacturers and sellers for injuries or damages caused by their products.

Just like any other product, AI-enabled products can be subject to claims of design defects or manufacturing defects. Design defects refer to flaws in the product’s initial design, while manufacturing defects involve errors that occur during the manufacturing process. If an AI product has a defect that causes harm, the manufacturer or seller may be liable.

Additionally, manufacturers have a duty to provide adequate warnings and instructions for the safe use of their products. This is particularly important for AI products, as users may not fully understand the capabilities and limitations of AI systems. Failure to warn of potential risks or limitations could result in liability if harm occurs.

AI products often process and store large amounts of user data, therefore GDPR compliance may be crucial. Manufacturers must take appropriate measures to protect user data from breaches and unauthorized access. Failure to do so may lead to liability under data protection and privacy laws.

Different jurisdictions may have specific requirements for AI-based products, and non-compliance could result in legal consequences.

AI products should be designed to receive updates and improvements as technology evolves. Failing to provide necessary updates to address known issues could result in liability.

It’s important to note that product liability cases involving AI are still relatively new, and legal precedents are evolving. Manufacturers and sellers of AI products should work closely with legal experts to navigate the complexities of product liability in the AI context.

An autonomous vehicle can cause injuries to a person posing a liability question on a quite a few legal or physical persons. For example, liable can be car manufacturer, supplier of AI algorithm, or the car owner himself.

If an AI system’s decision-making process is not transparent, it can be difficult to establish whether a defect in the AI’s algorithm contributed to harm. In scenarios where a clear allocation of risk control is no longer possible, risks insurance might be the answer.

By Nenad Cvjeticanin, Managing Partner, Cvjeticanin & Partners

Open call for granting non-refundable cash incentives and approval of loans with the aim of incentivizing the development of women’s entrepreneurship was published on 28 August as part of Program for incentivising the development of entrepreneurship through financial assistance for women’s entrepreneurship (Program).

The total available funds for the implementation of this Program amount to RSD 600 million. The following categories may submit their application:

• women entrepreneurs; and
• micro and small companies, whose founder and legal representative is a woman; and
• micro and small companies which have multiple founders, and a share in the ownership of one or more women is minimum 50% and whose at least one legal representative is a woman.

These entities can qualify for financial support in the form of:

1. non-refundable cash grants consisting 40% of the value of investment (or up to 50% of the value of investment for business entities which belong to local governments placed in the third or fourth group of development); and
2. loans from the Development Fund of the Republic of Serbia (which will serve for financing of the remaining investment amount) with a repayment period of up to five years, within which there is a grace period of up to one year, and a annual interest rate of 1.5% with a bank guarantee or 2.5% annually with other forms of security and with a currency clause.

The total amount of approved funds per request cannot be less than RSD 400,000, nor more than RSD 6 million for: (i) entities registered in the Business Registers Agency (BRA) not later than 31 December 2020, and which do not have a minimum of five employees as of 31 December 2022, on indefinite or fixed term employment basis, as well as (ii) entities registered in the BRA from 1 January 2021, onwards. For amounts up to RSD 12 million, entities that are registered in the BRA by 31 December 2020, and have a minimum of five employees as of 31 December 2022, in fixed-term and/or indefinite-term employment basis, are eligible to apply.

Investments that can be financed include:

• purchase of machinery/equipment/tools, new computer equipment and software, and vehicles (including electric mopeds) used for the transport of own products, raw materials, and other means of transport involved in the production process and service provision (new or used, not older than five years);
• regular maintenance and/or adaptation of business and/or production space up to an amount of RSD 1 million;
• purchase of business/production space for business entities registered in the BRA by 31 December 2020, and employing a minimum of five employees as of 31 December 2022 (including the entrepreneur herself, regardless of the basis on which she is insured); and
• operating costs, which can account for up to 25% of the total investment structure for which the funds are sought.

Documentation regarding open call and information on submitting requests are available at the link https://preduzetnistvo.gov.rs/programi/bespovratna-sredstva/konkurs-za-zensko-preduzetnistvo/.

The open call is open until the amount of requested non-refundable funds exceeds 35% of the available funds for the implementation of the Program, which is the average percentage of rejected and withdrawn requests in previous years.

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

By Milena Jaksic Papac, Partner, and Katarina Tomic, Senior Associate, Karanovic & Partners

Wolf Theiss has advised India’s automotive systems and components manufacturer Sona BLW Precision Forgings on the EUR 40.5 million acquisition of a 54% stake in Serbia’s radar sensor and embedded systems company Novelic. Schoenherr, working with India’s Priti Suri & Associates, advised Novelic’s founders on the sale.

According to Wolf Theiss, the deal closed on September 5, 2023, and included the share acquisition and a capital infusion into Novelic, which saw Sona BLW become its majority owner. The subsidiaries of Novelic in Serbia, Romania, and North Macedonia have all been integrated into the Sona Group. “This transaction represents a significant milestone for Sona BLW and Novelic, poised to drive innovation and technology advancements in the automotive industry. It underscores the strategic vision of both companies and their commitment to delivering cutting-edge solutions.”

According to Schoenherr, the transaction values Novelic at an enterprise value of EUR 64.5 million on a pre-money basis and EUR 75 million on a post-money basis. Novelic is a self-sustaining provider of mmWave radar sensors, perception solutions, and full-stack embedded systems. Founded in 2012, the company has more than 180 engineers in multidisciplinary teams and holds multiple global patents in mmWave radar sensing and systems. It has grown at more than 50 % CAGR over the last ten years, without raising any external equity capital.

Sona Comstar was founded in 1995 and has its headquarters in Gurugram, India. The company is a global supplier with nine manufacturing and assembly facilities across India, the US, Mexico, and China.

The Wolf Theiss team was led by Serbia-based Partner Natasa Lalovic Maric and included Counsels Aleksandar Ristic and Vidak Kovacevic, Senior Associates Jovan Micovic and Katarina Randjelovic, Attorneys-at-Law Milos Rubezic, Marijana Zejakovic, Milan Novakov, Katarina Stojakovic, and Vjera Vlahovic, Associate Katarina Kracun, and Legal Trainee Stefan Silobad, Romania-based Associate Claudia Andreescu, and Bulgaria-based Counsel Hristina Dzhevlekova, with further team members in Romania and Bulgaria.

The Schoenherr team was led by Partner Vojimir Kurtic and included Partners Matija Vojnovic and Danijel Stevanovic, Attorney at Law Bojan Rajic, and Associates Luka Milosevic and Zeljko Loci.

The Government of the Republic of Serbia adopted amendments and supplements to the Excise Law (Law) on 6 September 2023.

Increase in excise taxes

The Law prescribes an increase in excise taxes by 8% effective from 1 October 2023 for:

• petroleum derivatives;
• coffee;
• alcoholic beverages;
• tobacco products;
• liquids for electronic cigarette refills.

New excise taxes and excisable goods

One of the crucial amendments to The Law is the introduction of a new excise tax for natural gas for final consumption for motor vehicles and heating, with the taxation commencing on 1 January 2025.

The Law has also introduced a new excisable product – nicotine pouches, which will be subject to excise duties starting from 1 January 2024.

E-excise system

The Law introduces the e-excise system, a centralized information system managed by the Ministry of Finance containing information related to:

• excisable products;
• excise duty taxpayers;
• participants in the supply chain.

The new system will allow electronic applications for the issuance of control excise stamps, permits for excise warehouses, and business process management. Obligation to use the e-excise system will come into force on 1 October 2024.

Additionally, the Law introduces control stamps with QR codes to improve tracking of excisable products, which will come into force on 1 January 2025.

Registry of importers

Finally, the Law also introduces a registry of importers of alcoholic beverages and coffee, which will be operated by the Customs Administration. The importers of alcoholic beverages and coffee will be obliged to register in the registry before releasing alcoholic beverages and coffee into free circulation. The bylaw which will regulate the registry in more detail should be adopted by 14 June 2024.

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 Senior Associate, Milica Mijatovic Associate, Karanovic & Partners

It is well established in today’s world that the resolution of civil disputes is a crucial aspect of any legal system both by ensuring justice effectively and enabling continual business relationships to thrive unhindered by excessively long-lasting court proceedings.

Being that the efficiency of legal proceedings is of utmost importance, clients seek timely resolution of their disputes. Thus, one of the main concerns before initiating any civil proceeding is how long is it going to last.

Civil disputes can be resolved in two alternative forums, before the state court and before arbitration. While civil procedure follows the conventional path of litigation through the courts, arbitration offers an alternative method for dispute resolution through private tribunals. The condition for the dispute to be resolved by arbitration is for the dispute to be arbitrable (capable of being settled by arbitration) and that the parties to the dispute concluded an arbitration agreement.

Although both types aim to provide fair and efficient solutions for dispute resolution, the duration of proceedings can significantly differ between the two. In this article, we will delve into the duration of these types of proceedings In the Republic of Serbia, to better understand the advantages and drawbacks of each approach.

Civil Procedure

In the case a resolution of a certain dispute cannot be resolved amicably, the main and most widely used type of dispute resolution in civil matters in the Republic of Serbia is the litigation through the Serbian courts. In the Republic of Serbia, different laws govern and regulate the length of civil proceedings, as well as legal remedies the parties may utilize in the case their right to a trial within a reasonable time should be violated.

The civil procedure in Serbia is governed by the Law on Civil Procedure (in Serbian: “Zakon o parnicnom postupku”), which outlines the rules and principles for resolving disputes through the court system.

When it comes to the duration of civil proceedings, the Article 10 of the Law on Civil Procedure prescribes that every party has the right to have the court decide on its requests and proposals within a reasonable time. The cited article further stipulates that the court is obliged to conduct the procedure without delay, in accordance with the previously determined time frame for undertaking litigation actions (hereinafter: time frame) and with as few costs as possible.

Furthermore, Article 326 of the Law on Civil Procedure prescribes that the court is obliged to ensure that the subject of the dispute is comprehensively discussed, that the procedure is not prolonged as well as that the discussion is completed, if possible, at one hearing, i.e., within the time frame.

Thus, it can be seen that the main principles ensuring the efficiency of proceedings which the Law on Civil Procedure envisages are deciding on a judgment within a reasonable time and the time frame determined in the proceeding.

The main method envisaged in the Law on Civil Procedure for ensuring an efficient trial is setting the time frame of the proceedings. Article 308 para. 1 of the Law on Civil Procedure prescribes that the parties are obliged to propose a time frame for conducting the proceedings not later than at the first hearing. The deadlines, hearings, and all further actions in the proceedings are then determined according to the time frame. Furthermore, after the determining the time frame of the proceedings, the court is obliged to uphold the determined the time frame, prevent any attempt of unfounded postponement of the hearing as well as to sanction any violation or abuse of procedural rights and violation of procedural discipline. Finally, article 108 of the Law on Civil Procedure prescribes that when postponing the hearing, the court shall always determine a new time frame, which cannot be longer than one third of the originally determined time frame.

Nevertheless, this method of ensuring efficient proceedings has proven to be inefficient. The hearings are often postponed for a variety of reasons, whereas the next hearings are usually scheduled in not less than several months.

According to the data of the regional survey on the judicial system of the World Bank, the average length of the first-instance court proceedings in civil matters in the Republic of Serbia is 15 months. However, many of the civil proceedings do not end after the first instance judgement but may last several years by the time the appellate and second-instance proceedings are completed.

According to the data of the Supreme court of Serbia, over 50% of unsolved cases have entered into their fourth year of duration, while in 25% of the cases, between 5 and 10 years have passed from the date of submission of the initial act.

Further, the total number of all new cases received before all courts in Serbia in 2022 (including the criminal, enforcement, non-litigation, and other proceedings) amounts to a copious 1,808,813 cases, while the total number of solved cases before all court combined amounts to 2,132,305. Additionally, in the last decade, a tendency of an increase in litigation cases can be seen, amounting to a total 270,765 new cases before all courts in 2019.

It thus comes as no surprise that the civil proceedings may be lengthy, resulting from the sheer number of cases before the courts on the one hand, and from the very statutory regulations governing the civil procedure on the other. In light of the above, the civil proceedings in Serbia can extend to several years in first instance only, especially in complex cases.

Arbitration

While being an alternative to litigation through the civil courts, the arbitration offers a different approach to dispute resolution in the Republic of Serbia.

One of the most significant advantages of arbitration is the flexibility it offers in tailoring the dispute resolution process to the parties’ needs. The parties have control over selecting arbitrators, determining the applicable rules, and setting deadlines for the proceedings. This autonomy can significantly impact the duration of the process, as the parties can agree on a more expedited timeline. The arbitral proceedings are hence governed by different set of rules that the civil proceedings, which in turn prompt a difference in their respective length.

In Serbia, the arbitration is governed by the Arbitration Act (in Serbian: Zakon o arbitraži), while the two of the main bodies conducting the domestic arbitration are the Permanent Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia and the Belgrade Arbitration Center. While being generally similar, each of these bodies have their respective rules on conducting arbitration, and with that, the length of the arbitral proceedings.

Both the Rules of the Permanent Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia (hereinafter: Rules of PA), and the Rules of the Belgrade Arbitration Center (hereinafter: BAC Rules) are fairly similar when it comes to the duration of the proceedings. Thus, it is prescribed that, as a rule, arbitral proceedings shall be completed within six months from the date of constitution of the arbitral tribunal or the appointment of the sole arbitrator.

The Rules of PA further envisage that, as an exception, the arbitral tribunal or the sole arbitrator may decide, upon obtaining the consent of the President, that the arbitral proceedings shall be extended after the expiration of the above-stated time limit if it is necessary for the purpose of obtaining evidence, if the parties make such a request, or for other justified reasons.

The BAC Rules includes a similar provision, prescribing that as an exception, the arbitral tribunal may extend the time limit at the request of the parties or on its own initiative, but always with prior consent of the Board. The time limit may also be extended by the Board on its own initiative if it deems that there are justified reasons for such extension.

While both rules prescribe that proceedings are generally to be completed within six months from the date of constitution of the arbitral tribunal, in practice, it is more often than not that this deadline is extended by the request of the parties.

Another aspect of arbitration heavily influencing the length of the proceedings and differentiating them from the civil procedure are the rules governing the conduct of the proceedings and procedural timetable.

Thus, Article 30 of the Rules of PA envisages that upon transmission of the files of the case from the Secretariat of the Arbitration to the arbitral tribunal or the sole arbitrator, the members of the arbitral tribunal or the sole arbitrator may for reasons of efficiency consult the parties to the dispute and establish the procedural timetable of the arbitral proceedings. The procedural timetable shall contain time limits for potential additional submissions of the parties, the date on which the hearing for oral argument shall take place, as well as the indication of the time period within which or the date on which the rendering of the final award is planned. In addition to the aforementioned elements, the procedural timetable may contain other necessary elements.

Similarly, Article 29 (4) of the BAC Rules prescribes that the arbitral tribunal shall endeavor to lay down a procedural timetable as soon as possible in the proceedings, after inviting the parties to present their views. The arbitral tribunal may, at any time, after inviting the parties to present their views, extend or shorten the time limits agreed upon by the parties, prescribed by the Rules, or established in the arbitral tribunal’s procedural order.

Consequently, the Rules of PA and BAC Rules provide the parties with the option of regulating the rules and dates of their respective submissions and hearings themselves, while the decision of the tribunal heavily relies on the parties’ view.

It can be said that the efficiency of arbitral proceedings in many ways arises from this approach. By pre-determining the dates of the actions in the proceedings, the set deadlines ensure a swift resolution of disputes in arbitral proceedings.

In addition to the regular procedural rules in arbitration, the Rules of PA obtain a set of rules governing special rules on expedited arbitration procedure. While being in discretion of the parties, these represent a special set of rules which regulate the arbitral proceedings in the case when the amount in dispute does not exceed EUR 50.000,00, or when the parties have agreed that the proceedings shall be governed by these special rules.

In the expedited arbitration procedure, the proceedings are conducted by the sole arbitrator, which is to be appointed by the parties within 15 days from the day on which they were instructed by the Secretariat of Arbitration. Further, the rules of expedited arbitration envisage shorter deadlines for submitting the submission in the proceedings, whereas as a rule, only one hearing is to be held.

In light of the above, the expedited arbitration procedure provides the parties with an option of even quicker and more effective dispute resolution, while usually being restricted to low-value disputes.

Finally, the main advantage of arbitration in comparison to civil procedure is the legal finality and enforceability of the arbitral award. Aside from the proceedings of setting aside an arbitral award, applicable only in special circumstances, the arbitration does not offer a possibility of an appeal, limiting the maximal length of the proceedings to one-instance only.

This in itself might be the main point differentiating the length of arbitral and civil proceedings.

Conclusion

The length of proceedings in arbitration and civil procedure in Serbia differs significantly. Arbitration offers a more efficient and tailored approach to dispute resolution, allowing parties to resolve their issues promptly and cost-effectively. On the other hand, civil procedure, while providing a formal and regulated forum, can lead to prolonged disputes due to its strict procedural requirements. Choosing the most appropriate dispute resolution mechanism can thus significantly impact the speed and efficiency of resolving conflicts.

Both arbitration and civil procedure have their merits and are suited to different circumstances. Parties should consequently carefully consider their specific needs and preferences when choosing the most appropriate method for dispute resolution in the Republic of Serbia. Ultimately, the goal is to achieve a fair and timely resolution that upholds the principles of law and aligns with the interests of all parties involved.

By Ivana Petkovic, Senior Associate, and Dusan Zegarac, Associate, JPM & Partners

On August 25, 2023, the Government of the Republic of Serbia adopted the Personal Data Protection Strategy for the period 2023-2030 (“Strategy”).

The Strategy was prepared in accordance with other planning documents, i.e., programs of planning and coordination of public policies. When drafting the Strategy, the processes of European integrations, i.e., the framework by which the EU measures the progress of the candidate countries with regards to personal data protection were also taken into account. In addition, the key international acts were considered, and national laws relevant to the subject matter were analyzed as well.

Namely, the Strategy includes an overview and analysis of the current situation, where numerous shortcomings of the existing Law on Personal Data Protection (Official Gazette of RS no. 87/2018) (“the Law”) were identified as key problems in this respect. Namely, although the Law largely contains provisions taken from the GDPR, the solutions provided for therein are not appropriately adapted to local conditions, which makes it difficult for both the controllers, i.e., the processors, and the regulatory bodies.

In addition to the above, the Strategy includes a vision Protected data – safer citizens, while its general objective is Respecting the right to protection of personal data in all areas of life. The achievement of the aforesaid general objective is planned through the attainment of three specified goals, namely:

• improvement of functional mechanisms of personal data protection;
• improvement of awareness of the importance of the respective protection and of the ways of exercising rights; and
• improvement of the personal data protection system during the development and application of information and communication technologies in digitization processes.

Namely, the Strategy emphasizes the need to improve the Law, but also to harmonize other regulations with the provisions thereof, i.e., rules regarding the personal data protection, and to regulate the use of equipment for audio and video surveillance, as well as the use of genetic and biometric data.

In addition to the above, the Strategy announced a harsher penal policy for breaching obligations concerning personal data protection, emphasizing that the model used by the Commission for the Protection of Competition should be applied in this regard, according to which, in the event of a violation of regulations in the respective matter, the Commission itself can impose a fine, whereby the amount thereof depends on the company’s income.

It was also announced that the institutional capacities of the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection shall be strengthened, by providing additional regional offices, and by increasing the number of persons specialized for personal data protection in the bodies dealing with the subject issues, through their education.

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

Zivkovic Samardzic has successfully represented the B92 media company before the European Court of Human Rights in a dispute against Serbia.

According to the firm, the case at hand originated in an application against Serbia concerning the TV news broadcast and an online article published in 2011, which reported that, in the pre-trial proceedings regarding the procurement of AH1N1 vaccines in 2009, the officers of the Organised Financial Crime Department’s Anti-Corruption Division of the Serbian Criminal Police Directorate had a reason to suspect that the Assistant Minister of Health at the time was involved in the abuses. “According to the TV news broadcast and online article published by B92, the name of the Assistant Minister of Health, along with several others, was omitted from the final criminal complaint that was brought against only three persons. Broadcaster based its reporting on a note filed by the officers of the Anti-Corruption Division informing their superiors on the issue.”

Furhtermore, the firm reported that, “in 2012, the Assistant Minister of Health instituted proceedings against the broadcaster before the Belgrade High Court, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage, publication of the court’s judgment, and removal of the two articles from the broadcaster’s Internet portal. The Assistant Minister submitted, in particular, that it was not true that she had been suspected of abuse of office, or of anything else, nor had she been removed from the alleged list of suspects because of illicit influence.”

The Belgrade High Court ruled partly in favor of the Assistant Minister and, in 2014, the Belgrade Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment, In 2016, the Constitutional Court dismissed the broadcaster’s constitutional appeal. The case ultimately ended up before the European Court of Human Rights which, according to Zivkovic Samardzic, “unanimously declared that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention and held that the respondent state (Serbia) is to pay the broadcaster EUR 2,740 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,400 in respect of costs and expenses.”

The Zivkovic Samardzic team included Partner Kruna Savovic and Associate Jovan Pjevac.