Category: Serbia

  • Guidelines on Data Protection In Proceedings Before the Commission for the Protection of Competition Have Been Published

    At the 120th session held on 7 April 2023, the Council of the Commission for Protection of Competition issued an Instruction on the content and method of submitting a request for imposing data protection measure (“Instructions“), which specifies in more detail the content and method of submitting a request for imposing a measure of protection of data source and/or certain data, in accordance with the Law on the Protection of Competition (“Law“).

    Namely, pursuant to provisions of Article 45 of the Law, the Commission for Protection of Competition (“Commission”) is entitled to impose a measure for protection of data source or certain data (protected data) on the basis of a request of one of the following persons:

    • a party; or
    • a person who is an applicant of an initiative for examination of competition violation; or
    • third party who submitted, or made available for inspection, requested data in the procedure before the Commission.

    The data protection measure shall be determined by the Commisiion, i.e. the Chairperson of the Commision by a conclusion, pursuant to Article 45 of the Law, only in case the Chairperson assesses that the applicant’s interest for data protection is justified and significantly greater than the interest of the public regarding the subject of a pending request.

    In addition, the Law stipulates that the applicant of a request for data protection is obliged to make likely the cause of significant damage due to the disclosure of a data source, i.e. certain data to which the request relates, and for the avoidance of doubt, the Law additionally stipulates that data protected in the procedure before the Commission does not have the status of information of public importance, in relation to the provisions of the law regulating free access to information of public importance.

    The Commission issued the Instruction in accordance with its competence prescribed by Article 21 of the Law, thus we present below some important information contained within the Instruction:

    • Applicant – applicants of a request for an opinion (in connection with application of applicable regulations in the field of antitrust matters) cannot submit the mentioned request for data protection, unless such applicants submit certain data at the request of the Commission;
    • Subject of protection – The Instruction provides further insight to what is meant by protection of data source and additionally states that a party in a procedure before theCommission cannot demand its identity to be protected as a data source (except when otherwise specified in the Instruction itself);
    • Data which cannot be the subject of protection – the Commission determines in more detail which data cannot be covered by a request for data protection, such as, for example, publicly available and commonly known data, data regarding an authorized person in a procedure, data that has lost commercial significance due to the passage of time, etc.;
    • Protection of business secret – data which represents business secret, in accordance with the law governing protection of business secrets, is protected as business secret;
    • Protection of other confidential data – if subject of protection is other data that an applicant considers to be confidential, an applicant is obliged to state basis and reasons related to the confidentiality of data;
    • Content of the request for data protection – the Instruction prescribes duties of an applicant in the course of submitting a request for data protection, such as applicant’s obligation to point out the likelihood of damage occurence due to the disclosure of certain data, quantification of damage, as well as to point out the exact data for which an applicant requests protection, etc.;
    • Request submission – the Instruction provides insight into the procedure for submitting a request for data protection, the Commission’s actions after the receipt of a request for data protection as well as steps in the course of rendering a decision.

    We can conclude that the purpose which shall be achieved by data protection in the proceedings before the Commission, pursuant to the provisions of the Law and the Instruction, implies that data to be protected shall not be made public, i.e. protected data shall be omitted from decisions and acts of the Commission that are made public, and thus protected data cannot be reviewed or to copied in the course of inspection of case files, regardless of whether such data are in hard copy or electronic form, in Serbian or foreign language.

    The Appendix to the Instruction also includes the Data Protection Request Form, which is submitted to the Commission in procedure of protection of data, whereas we would like to emphasize that the Form contains certain guidelines which could be useful to applicants when filling out the Form and submitting it to the Commission.

    By Ivana Ruzicic, Managing Partner and Sara Ostojic, Senior Associate, PR Legal

  • A Closer Look: Zivkovic Samardzic’s Igor Zivkovski on the Fifth Quarter Ventures Alternative Investment Fund in Serbia

    On May 2, 2023, CEE Legal Matters reported that Zivkovic Samardzic had advised Fifth Quarter Ventures on the legal process for becoming an alternative investment fund in Serbia. CEELM reached out to Zivkovic Samardzic Partner Igor Zivkovski to learn more about the matter.

    CEELM: At what stage did Zivkovic Samardzic become involved in the project?

    Zivkovski: Zivkovic Samardzic was involved in this project from the very beginning and it continues to support Fifth Quarter Ventures in all aspects of establishing and developing the fourth alternative investment fund in the Republic of Serbia. We are very glad to be a part of this project, having in mind that the evolution and growth of the investment funds in Serbia has been a hot topic in recent years, and its regulatory development has been long awaited by the entire Serbian capital market. Although this is a challenging procedure, we are very proud to be one of the first law firms in Serbia to gain first-hand experience in this area and we are delighted that FQV has put their trust in our team – which includes Partner Sava Pavlovic, Associate Ana Grebo, and myself – giving us an exciting opportunity to observe how this procedure will unfold in the near future.

    CEELM: And what, specifically, was the firm’s mandate?

    Zivkovski: Our team’s mandate implied involvement from day one: the establishment of the limited liability company, Fifth Quarter Ventures doo Novi Sad; assistance in FQV’s participation in the public call published within the Serbia Ventures Serbian Innovation Fund Program, which resulted in FQV being selected among the funds in which the Serbia Innovation Fund intends to invest EUR 5 million; and concluding the first framework investment agreement between the two parties involved.

    For FQV to receive the investment mentioned above, it must be transformed and established as an alternative investment fund according to the Serbian legal framework. Logically, for FQV and for us as their legal advisors, the next steps are solely directed at the establishment of the alternative investment fund before the Securities Commission.

    CEELM: What did the process of becoming an alternative investment fund in Serbia entail?

    Zivkovski: The procedure of establishing an alternative investment fund, according to the Serbian regulatory framework, is led before the Securities Commission of the Republic of Serbia and entails a two-step procedure: first, the establishment of the management company of alternative investment funds (AIFM), which was successfully finalized in April 2023; and second, the establishment of the alternative investment fund (AIF), which is currently in progress.

    The first part of the procedure, the establishment of the AIFM, required the founders to submit the necessary documentation to the Securities Commission, in order to receive the most important permit, which enables the AIFM to establish an AIF in the Republic of Serbia.

    For the founders to be fully prepared every step of the way, the Zivkovic Samardzic team supported them throughout this operation and performed the necessary extensive legal analysis of the regulatory framework, assisted in obtaining the majority of the mandatory documentation, and drafted numerous legal documents, as well as continuously communicated with the authorities, stakeholders, banks, and other parties involved.

    Further, as we are in the midst of the final second phase – the establishment of the alternative investment fund – our team is preparing and putting together the necessary documentation for submission to the Securities Commission, and we are hoping that, in the near future, FQV will be able to share the good news, once the Securities Commission issues the second, final, permit that will enable the establishment of the AIF. 

    CEELM: What would you say was the most complicated aspect of the project?

    Zivkovski: As already mentioned, the regulatory framework concerning alternative investment funds has been developed and adopted somewhat recently, which means there is a lack of practice in this area for every party involved in the procedure (founders, legal practitioners, and authorities), making the entire process time consuming and, in some respects, contradictory with certain question still left up for debate. Nonetheless, we are sure that the procedure will get more efficient and that all questions and doubts will be solved over time as the practice develops, and the Serbian capital market becomes richer with more funds and investors.

    CEELM: In contrast, what do you believe went particularly smoothly?

    Zivkovski: Given that FQV was an established and duly registered limited liability company before starting the procedure of establishing the AIFM and AIF before the Securities Commission, and that we transformed an already existing limited liability company into an AIFM, to a certain extent, made the procedure a bit easier, especially when it came to the administrative procedures before the Serbian Business Registers Agency. In all other aspects, considering the above, we had our work cut out for us.

  • Serbian Business Registers Agency Introduces Electronic Registration with the Registry of Bidders

    An administrative novelty comes early this year from the Serbian Business Registers Agency (“SBRA”) by introducing electronic registration with the Registry of Bidders.

    Frequent participants in the public procurement procedures already know well of this Registry and the perks of its membership. Generally, public procurement in Serbia is a rather formal procedure, highly demanding on the volume of documents which need to be submitted on the way to becoming, as the law requires, the most advantageous bidder.

    Among these documents is numerous evidence on the non-existence of grounds for exclusion under the Public Procurement Law, such as certificates of non-conviction for certain criminal acts (“Non-Exclusion Evidence”). Bidders whose business entails frequent and large-scale bidding regularly find the procedure for obtaining of Non-Exclusion Evidence an administrative difficulty, having to obtain evidence from various authorities on a tight schedule. Instead, by inscribing in the Registry, bidders are exempt from obtaining the Non-Exclusion Evidence they would otherwise be obliged to, each time they submit a bid.

    As of 1 January 2023, bidders can now register with the Registry of Bidders completely electronically, using a qualified electronic signature of the applicant and paying a fee using a payment card. Upon receiving the registration application, SBRA collects the Non-Exclusion Evidence ex officio, i.e., directly from all relevant institutions and their records, and decides within five business days from gathering insight into the relevant information.

    This novelty is part of the project “Effective Public Procurement in the Service of Economic Growth”, financed by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. As part of the project, another interesting step was made towards digitalization of the procurement procedure, as the Public Procurement Portal, used for submission of bids and communication with the procuring entities, is now also available as a mobile app. This should allow easier and faster communication between the bidder and the procuring entity, as both can now receive pop-up notifications on the developments of their relevant bids. Also, a new e-learning platform was established with the intent to acquaint the public with the overall procurement procedure.

    In the long run, this step forward in the digitalization direction should boost a bigger ratio of bidders to inscribe in the Registry of Bidders. The latest statistics of NALED show that around 60% of bidders in 2022 were not inscribed in Registry, leaving room for improvement. Ultimately, having perceived the alure of being inscribed in the Registry, the bidders should be (more) willing to participate in (more) procurements, thus acting in favour of fair market competition.

    Finally – and intuitively most appealing – bidders should be able to focus their energy on the essence of the public procurement, such as the fulfilment of the qualitative criteria and technical specifications of the tender documentation.

    By Goran Radosevic, Partner and Anja Mihajlovic, Junior Associate, Karanovic & Partners

  • AI and Competition Law: Threat or Solution

    With technological advancements changing both how antitrust laws are enforced and how undertakings violate competition laws, the fourth industrial revolution and the rapid growth of AI continue to affect this area of law, as many others. It is impossible to ignore the potential for AI to conquer markets and its ability to spot and fix basic market balance violations. Despite the benefits of technology for customers, it also threatens their interests by distorting market dynamics and impacting competition.

    Threat

    Using AI presents a potential risk as it allows for price collusion through price monitoring and algorithmic matching software. While companies may legitimately adjust their prices to align with those of their competitors, they are strictly prohibited from sharing information, directly or indirectly, concerning their future pricing strategies through price signaling.

    Using price matching and monitoring algorithms and implementing blockchains to effectuate smart contracts presents a novel compliance challenge for companies, especially those operating in markets with a limited number of major competitors. Furthermore, AI has the potential to facilitate the exploitation of market power, resulting in discrimination or the foreclosure of competitors. This may occur through a merger or an exclusive cooperation agreement that combines a vast set of Big Data or when a dominant company possessing such extensive and unique Big Data employs it to discriminate against its competitors or customers. 

    Per the findings of the 2017 E-commerce Sector Inquiry conducted by the European Commission (“EC“), a significant majority (67%) of online businesses who actively monitored competition pricing utilized automated software systems to track and report prices. Subsequently, many of these entities engaged in manual price adjustments, while a considerable proportion used automated means to effectuate such modifications. The capacity of price algorithms to coordinate conduct has been recognized by various competition authorities (“CA“) worldwide, including the Federal Trade Commission, the UK Competition and Markets Authority, and the Serbian Commission for Protection of Competition.

    What is the threshold for determining illegality in market behavior? It is necessary to ascertain whether any unlawful conduct was preconceived (such as through AI instructions) or whether a specific outcome could have been reasonably predicted, even without human authorization, to establish a standard for antitrust behavior. Major players in the Big Data industry may engage in anticompetitive conduct to develop sophisticated algorithms utilizing sensitive data to achieve their desired results. Because these algorithms operate without human intervention, they are autonomous and favorably impact the market. Certain CAs, particularly the EC, have asserted that the direction and control of AI remain with the firm, making the firm responsible for the algorithm’s actions, even if the firm does not directly control the algorithm.

    Solution

    The CA may launch a competition investigation based on various signals, including a complaint submitted by an undertaking, the disclosure of market information by undertakings or individuals, or information obtained by the CA of its own volition. Now more than ever, CAs worldwide are analyzing the potential influence of AI on market competition.

    The CAs possess significant discretion in selecting which undertakings to put under scrutiny. Given its limited resources and overriding obligation to the public interest, they must weigh the gravity of any alleged violation against the possibility of detecting and establishing a breach. By employing AI, the CAs can enhance investigative efficiencies in the early phases of an investigation by expediting the identification and analysis of market trends beyond what could be accomplished by human intelligence alone. As the quantity of available data increases rapidly, AI can help the CAs detect trends that could act as early indicators of a market-wide lack of competition.

    Historically, enforcement authorities have faced difficulties identifying secret cartels, mainly because of their covert operations. The establishment of legendary leniency programs, which provided incentives to companies that disclose information on their cartel affiliates, has enabled various governments to combat such anticompetitive practices effectively. The question arises whether the onset of AI is rendering the traditional leniency program to the well-deserved retirement.

    CAs are considering the option of establishing their own in-house digital forensics units. Some have already designed digital tools that incorporate AI systems for practical use. Others have opted to hire information technology (“IT“) experts to assist case handlers in comprehending how digitalization may improve the enforcement of competition law. CAs also recognize that AI can enhance competition by facilitating targeted marketing and swift, competitive reactions to pricing modifications, potentially resulting in heightened competition, reduced prices, and superior customer service.

    While recognizing the potential benefits of employing AI in competition enforcement, it is imperative to exercise short to medium-term prudence to avoid undermining fundamental EU legal safeguards. This entails preventing the risk of enforcement bias or impinging upon fundamental rights such as the right to a fair trial or privacy. 

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, the effect of AI on competition law presents multifaceted and dynamic challenges. Despite the potential benefits of AI in enhancing competition and enforcement through expedited data analysis, it also poses substantial threats, such as enabling anticompetitive conduct and discriminatory practices against competitors and consumers. To achieve a harmonious equilibrium between fostering innovation and competition and safeguarding competition, CAs must navigate this balance carefully. Moreover, they should remain proactive in evolving their enforcement mechanisms to tackle the emerging issues and opportunities arising from the development of AI technology.

    By Miodrag Jevtić, Counsel, Vuk Leković, Senior Associate and Nikola Ivković, Associate Gecic Law

  • Arm’s Length Interest Rates for 2023 Published in Serbia

    Serbian Minister of Finance issued the Rulebook on interest rates that are considered to be in line with the arm’s length principle for the year 2023 (the Rulebook), which enters into force on 6 April 2023.

    The Rulebook sets the interest rate which are, in most cases, higher for 0.5-1% than those for 2022. There are a couple of exceptions, such as for both long-term and short-term loans in RSD and short term-loans in USD between companies, for which the interest rate are higher for up to 1.6%.

    Interest rates may be used by taxpayers to compare agreed interest rates on loans with related parties, for the calculation of corporate income tax for the FY 2023.

    Interest rates that are considered to be in accordance with the “arm’s length” principle, prescribed by the Rulebook for 2023 are the following:

    1) for banks and financial leasing providers:

    (1) 1.48 % on short-term loans in RSD (compared to 0.50% in 2022);

    (2) 4.47% on long-term loans in RSD (compared to 2.86% in 2022);

    (3) 3.25% on loans in EUR and dinar loans indexed in EUR (compared to 2.75% in 2022);

    (4) 4.43% on loans in USD and dinar loans indexed in USD (compared to 3.91% in 2022);

    (5) 2.63% on CHF loans and dinar loans indexed to CHF (compared to 2.61% in 2022);

    (6) 3.70% on loans in SEK and dinar loans indexed in SEK (compared to 3.96% in 2022);

    (7) 1.88% on loans in GBP and dinar loans indexed in GBP (compared to 1.88 % in 2022);

    (8) 1.91% on loans in RUB and dinar loans indexed in RUB (compared to 2.31% in 2022); and

    (9) 4.01% on loans in CNY and dinar loans indexed in CNY (not provided for 2022).

     

    2) for other companies:

    (1) 3.88% on short-term loans in RSD (compared to 3.12% in 2022);

    (2) 4.74% on long-term loans in RSD (compared to 3.39% in 2022);

    (3) 2.98% on short-term loans in EUR and dinar loans indexed in EUR (compared to 2.25% in 2022);

    (4) 3.22% on long-term loans in EUR and dinar loans indexed in EUR (compared to 2.73% in 2022);

    (5) 7.84% on long-term loans in CHF and dinar loans indexed in CHF (compared to 6.94% in 2022);

    (6) 3.18% on short-term loans in USD and dinar loans indexed in USD (compared to 1.85% in 2022);

    (7) 4.28% on long-term loans in USD and dinar loans indexed in USD (compared to 3.54% in 2022).

    By Branimir Rajsic, Senior Consultant, Katarina Tomic Senior Associate, Milica Mijatovic Associate, Karanovic & Partners

  • A Bid-Rigging in Public Procurement Proceedings

    The Serbian Competition Commission initiated an infringement investigation. On 20 April 2023, the Commission for the Protection of the Competition (“Commission”) initiated one more infringement investigation and carried out a dawn raid, this time against KTG Solucije d.o.o. Subotica (“KTG”) and Eco-Sense doo Subotica (“Eco Sense”) for possible RPM (resale price maintenance) and sharing of markets or source of supply in public procurement proceedings related to the materials and means for maintaining hygiene in facilities.

    In cooperation with the Public Procurement Office, as well as based on publicly available data on the Public Procurement Portal, the Commission found out that KTG, as a bidder in several public procurement procedures, withdrawn its bids, so that the contracting authority had to conclude agreements with the second-ranked bidder Eco-Sense, but at higher prices than those offered by KTG.

    In addition to withdrawing bids in certain public procurement procedures, acting in accordance with the 2022 Guidelines for the detection of rigged bids, the Commission conducted an analysis of the IP addresses (Internet Protocol addresses) from which KTG and Eco Sense accessed the Public Procurement Portal and found out that both companies almost always accessed from identical IP address, as well as from devices that were connected through the same Internet network or possibly through the same device.

    The Commission characterized this behavior as a restrictive practice – a joint performance of bidders KTG and Eco Sense, which directly led to RPM and sharing of markets or source of supply i.e., to a violation of competition rules from Article 10 of the Law on Protection of Competition.

    This is the first infringement investigation of the Commission regarding public procurement in the last three years, confirming our earlier articles in which it is stated that the Commission has increased its activities and continued with its focus on RPM.

    By Nikola Poznanovic, Partner, and Zivko Simijonovic, Senior Associate, JPM Jankovic Popovic Mitic

  • Mandatory Submission of the Incorporation Application in Electronic Form for the Companies

    The Ministry of Commerce of the Republic of Serbia has announced that the applications regarding the incorporation of companies (among others, limited liability companies and joint stock companies) can be submitted only in electronic form as of 18 May 2023 via a designated user application of the Serbian Business Registers Agency (“SBRA”).

    In respect of the other legal forms apart from the companies (cooperatives, cooperative unions, public enterprises, branch of a foreign company, and representative office of a foreign company) that are also registering with the SBRA, the applicants may opt for traditional submission or to apply electronically.

    Once the technical requirements are met, the SBRA is expected to release guidelines for applying for incorporation of a company in electronic form. What is certain for now is that all documents accompanying the incorporation application have to be in electronic form and signed using an electronic signature or stamp. For instance, articles/memorandum of association would be signed using an electronic signature of the shareholders of a limited liability company.

    If you need to submit a document that was not initially created in electronic form, you will have the option to digitize it by converting it into electronic form by certifying it with an electronic signature or stamp of:

    1) issuing authority or entity (e.g., the tax administration certifies tax administration certificates);

    2) Notary public as an authority authorized to certify transcripts notary public; or

    3) Serbian lawyer if it is also an attorney in the procedure.

    Foreign individuals still have to use electronic certificates issued by a certification body of the Republic of Serbia. They can obtain an electronic certificate under the same conditions as domestic individuals (while they will have to personally collect it). This also means that, for now, electronic documents issued by a foreign authority are not accepted by the SBRA. To work around this situation, a foreign applicant can make a copy of such a document which should then be certified by the foreign authority to prove its authenticity. A certified copy of such a document can be digitized by a notary or lawyer in the Republic of Serbia and used in the process.

    Finally, this regulatory amendment is part of a wider wave of digitization across the Serbian market. The main objective is to simplify the process of starting a business, by reducing both the costs and the time involved in processing requests, while simultaneously enhancing the quality of services.

    By Aleksa Bosnjovic, Senior Associate, Aleksandar Durovic, Trainee, SOG Law Firm

  • Milica Pesteric, Milos Andrejevic, and Stefan Golubovic Make Partner at BD2P

    Bojovic, Draskovic, Popovic & Partners Senior Associates Milica Pesteric, Milos Andrejevic, and Stefan Golubovic have been promoted to Partner.

    Pesteric, whose main focus is on energy, corporate and commercial law, and finance matters, has been with BD2P since 2018. Before joining the firm, she spent a year and a half with BDK Advokati and, earlier, almost eight years in-house with NIS Gazprom Neft.

    Andrejevic focuses on employment law, immigration, data protection, corporate and commercial matters, and dispute resolution, and has been with the firm since 2018. Before that, he spent over two years with PR Legal and, earlier, two and a half years with JMS Law Office.

    Golubovic’s main focus is on dispute resolution, corporate/M&A, and banking and finance. He has been with BD2P since 2017. Before joining the firm, he spent two years with BDK Advokati and, earlier, two years with Harrisons.

  • Tax Incentives for Research and Development

    Recent years have seen the amendment of multiple tax regulations that have introduced numerous incentives for a variety of taxpayers. These tax breaks have made Serbia a highly attractive country for foreign investment, which has in turn led to the development of a start-up ecosystem, job creation and more benefits for employees, and growth in several industries, most notably information technology (IT).

    Incentives aimed at promoting research and development (R&D) include: (i) R&D double deduction; (ii) personal incentives for R&D staff; (iii) income tax exemption for an eligible portion of income (IP Box); and (iv) incentives when investing in innovative start-ups. This article will cover each of these forms of tax relief in greater detail below.

    Definition of R&D

    The Serbian Corporate Income Tax Law defines ‘research’ as ‘any original or planned research undertaken with the purpose of gaining new scientific or technical knowledge or understanding’, whereas ‘development’ is to be construed as ‘application of the results of research or other scientific achievement or design, or the production of new, substantially improved materials, devices, products, processes, or systems, before the commencement of commercial production or utilisation’. These definitions suggest that R&D activities must be:

    (i) novel: the activities must be novel, meaning aimed at making new discoveries;

    (ii) systematic: the activities must be undertaken and financed pursuant to a pre-existing organisational arrangement;

    (iii) uncertain: there must be uncertainty as to whether any resulting products will be suitable for commercialisation;

    (iv) creative and original; and

    (v) transferable and reproducible: once gained, the knowledge may be transferred to other persons who should be able to reproduce the results of the research.

    Therefore, this category includes, for instance, developing a new computer programming language or a car based on a novel technology, but excludes designing or adding new functions to an existing product, arts, and the like.

    R&D double deduction

    The R&D double deduction allows a corporate income tax (CIT) payer to double deduct the direct costs of R&D performed in Serbia for CIT purposes. To claim this incentive, the applying company must prove the existence of a direct link between the costs incurred and the R&D activity, including having a project description or specification that includes but is not limited to the objectives and planned stages of the project, as well as any activities planned at every individual stage of the project.

    Another requirement readily apparent from this definition is that the double deduction may be claimed only if the costs are incurred for R&D performed in Serbia. However, the regulation brings clarity to the issue by allowing some R&D activities to take place outside of Serbia if due to specific physical, geographical, or natural considerations that cannot be met in the country.

    For instance, to complete a new product, the company developing it may require resources that are not available in Serbia. In this case, it is absolutely justifiable for the firm to move some research to the country where these resources can be obtained if doing so would result is substantial cost savings, and the project may be deemed to have taken place in Serbia. Another requirement of the Regulation is that at least 90 percent of any R&D staff engaged on the project must work in Serbia.

    The following costs may be double deducted: salaries; materials directly associated with R&D; expert consultancy, advisory services, and know-how obtained for use in R&D; protection of intellectual property in Serbia and abroad; intangible assets; production services obtained for use in R&D; and purchase and lease of real estate, plant, equipment, and biological assets for use in R&D; and the like.

    This incentive may significantly reduce a firm’s CIT base, as will be shown in the example below. Say a business has earned a taxable income of RSD 5 million. The company has been allowed to deduct RSD 2 million in costs, of which R&D costs account for RSD 500,000. Without the R&D double deduction, the taxable base amounts to RSD 3 million (5 million less 2 million), and the CIT for this tax period will be assessed at RSD 450,000 (3 million ⨉ 15 percent).
    Let us now assume the firm has claimed the R&D double deduction. In that case, the company will be entitled to deduct RSD 1 million for R&D (2 ⨉ 500,000), so the taxable base will stand at RSD 2.5 million, and the CIT will be assessed at RSD 375,000.

    Incentives for R&D staff

    Another form of tax relief is available to staff engaged directly on R&D activities. Here, a company that engages in R&D in Serbia as part of its business activity is entitled to a 70 percent exemption of payroll taxes for these staff in proportion to the time spent by these employees on R&D relative to their full working hours. The same option also allows a firm to deduct the totality of pension and disability contributions for this category of staff, with these costs instead met by the government.

    Any firm that employs staff and engages in R&D in Serbia may use this incentive. The company must also engage in R&D on its own behalf rather than for other entities and must retain title in any intangible property produced as a result of the R&D activities. For instance, a firm that develops a new programming language to an order from a client cannot benefit from R&D incentives for its staff because it is deemed to be providing services rather than doing R&D as part of its own business. Moreover, in this case the client will acquire all rights in the software, which violates the requirement for the R&D company to remain owner of the end product of its research.

    Any staff for which the R&D incentive can be claimed must be directly engaged on R&D projects. This approach means the tax relief is not available for project management staff (such as project planners and HR officers) or those who provide support services (such as technical support for R&D equipment). As such, any eligible employee must have an employment agreement clearly identifying their position as R&D, regardless of whether the agreement is open-ended or fixed-term, or full or part-time.

    IP Box
    The IP Box option allows companies to deduct 80 percent of eligible income from the CIT base. Eligible income is income derived from the licensing of registered intellectual property or ancillary rights, excluding any income earned from transfer of intellectual property in its entirety. The deduction entails first subtracting from total revenue any R&D costs incurred in generating the intellectual property (‘eligible costs’). This incentive may significantly reduce payable CIT, as it cuts the tax rate to 3 percent from the statutory 15 percent. Companies may even pay zero tax if they also claim R&D double deduction.

    This tax incentive may be used by firms that hold registered intellectual property or ancillary rights. To claim relief, these companies have to register intellectual property at the latest by the end of the tax period in which they first intend to apply the incentive. The intellectual property must also be the product of R&D performed in Serbia and the company must earn revenue from licensing that intellectual property. Derivative works can also be used to claim relief if such derivative works contain recognisable characteristic features of the original work or work subject to ancillary rights. In addition, the firm must also have registered the derivative work by the tax return deadline.

    This relief is also available, under the same conditions, to companies that have patented their intellectual property or applied for a patent before the expiry of the time limit for intellectual property registration. Where a patent application is denied after the tax incentive is granted, the company is required to add the total amount of the relief to its taxable base for the tax period in which its patent application was denied.

    Companies that transfer their intellectual property in its entirety to other entities are not entitled to claim tax relief under the IP Box scheme. This restriction also applies to businesses that provide R&D services to other entities, including their own affiliates.

    Incentives for investing in innovative start-ups

    The final type of tax incentives can be claimed by investors in innovative start-ups. For an investor to be able to access this relief, the start-up it invests in must have been incorporated not more than three years before the last day of the tax period in which the investment is made. Spin-offs of other businesses are not considered to be innovative start-ups.
    Access to this form of tax relief requires a set of conditions to be met cumulatively. Firstly, the start-up that is the target of the investment must have its centre of main interest in Serbia.

    Secondly, its annual income, as evidenced in its latest financial statements available as of the date of the investment, must not exceed RSD 500 million. Moreover, the company must not have paid out any dividends or profit-based bonuses since its incorporation and will also be barred from doing so for three years after the investment is made. The final requirement is that R&D must account for at least 15 percent of the start-up’s total expenditures. This condition is deemed to be met if more than 80 percent of the start-up’s employees are university graduates or if the start-up owns or licences for its use registered intellectual property associated with its innovation activity. These final considerations suggest the last requirement allows alternatives, whereby the start-up can fulfil any of the three conditions to be eligible.

    An investor in an innovative start-up is entitled to tax credit amounting to 30 percent of the investment. To access this incentive, the investor must not have held more than 25 percent of the shares, equity interests, or voting rights in the start-up before the eligible investment is made. The investment must be fully paid-in and the equity interest held by the investor in the start-up must not decrease for three consecutive years following the investment.

    The tax credit for investing in start-ups is capped at RSD 100 million. Regardless of the number of investments made, the investor may be granted a CIT deduction not exceeding RSD 50 million in any given tax year, whereas the remaining unused tax credit can be used to offset tax liabilities in future tax periods but expire in five years. Lastly, if the investor has any affiliates, the actual tax credit is capped at the difference, if any, of subtracting the sum of tax credits granted to those affiliates for investing in the same start-up and the general cap of RSD 100 million. The investor may use any approved tax credit starting from the first tax period after three years have elapsed from the date the investment is made.

    From 1 March 2020, innovative start-ups are exempt from payroll tax and associated social contributions on the salaries of its founders. The founder shall hold at least 5 percent of the company’s stocks or equity interests and does not earn a salary of more than RSD 150,000 a month. Where the salary is greater than this cap, the tax and contributions relief applies to the first RSD 150,000. The founder must also have an employment agreement with the start-up and be registered for compulsory social insurance.
    Where the same person is the founder of two or more start-up, only one of those start-ups will be eligible for this relief. A start-up that has successfully claimed this tax incentive for a particular person will also be barred from accessing any other tax breaks for which it is eligible by virtue of employing that person.

    Comment from the author

    The above considerations suggest Serbia has recognised the importance of promoting R&D activities, including the benefits of growing its R&D sector. This area was initially largely neglected and under-regulated, which often caused confusion as to how the various forms of tax relief could be accessed. However, the subsequent enactment of regulations and other byelaws has brought greater clarity, making it much easier for R&D companies to navigate this exceedingly complicated field. Finally, we hope these tax incentives become firmly bedded down and promote expansion of the R&D industry whilst also motivating existing R&D firms to continue operating in this particularly significant area.

    By Nikolina Dubroja, Trainee Lawyer, Vuković & Partners Law Firm

  • Vulic Law Advises Cofis on Establishing New Hotel Operator in Belgrade

    Vulic Law has advised Swiss hotel owner Cofis SA on the establishment of a new operator to manage a hotel in Belgrade.

    According to Vulic Law, the 123-room hotel is located in downtown Belgrade.

    The Vulic Law team was led by Managing Partner Milos Vulic and included Associate Lawyer Bosko Dimitrijevic.