Category: Serbia

Markovic Vukotic Jovkovic has advised BIG-CEE on the land acquisition and development of its tenth shopping center in Serbia, the newly opened BIG Pazova. 

According to MVJ, “the new shopping center is located three kilometers from the highway E-75, between Stara Pazova and Nova Pazova. The area of the shopping center covers 15,700 square meters with 645 free parking spaces.”

The MVJ team included Senior Partner Nikola Vukotic, Senior Associates Lazar Todosijevic and Marija Grujeska, and Associates Milos Veljasevic and Djordje Vulic.

White-Collar Crime Attorneys Danilo Nikolic and Luka Nikolic have joined Jankovic Popovic Mitic as Partners in the firm.

Danilo Nikolic had initially started his career with JPM as an Associate, first joining the firm in 2009, and staying for two years. Before rejoining JPM this year, he spent six and a half years with Bojanovic & Partners, as an Attorney at Law, and, earlier, five years as an Attorney at Law with the A42 law office.

Luka Nikolic specializes in criminal law, criminal compliance, and business compliance matters. He graduated in law from the University of Belgrade in 2015. He was admitted to the Belgrade Bar Association in 2017.  

“Danilo Nikolic and Luka Nikolic are bringing close to ten years of combined experience in criminal law and criminal compliance matters. Their extensive experience and expertise in criminal compliance and white-collar crime matters will be valuable assets to our firm and will enable us to provide even more comprehensive legal solutions to our clients,” JPM announced.

NKO Partners has advised the Dr. Max Group on its acquisition of the Vranje-based Nova Pharm pharmacy chain in Serbia. 

NKO had already advised the Dr. Max Group on three other pharmacy chain acquisitions in 2023: AU Medis Lek (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on January 6, 2023), Cvejic (as reported on January 31, 2023), and Beolek (as reported on March 9, 2023). 

The firm had also advised the Dr. Max Group on its acquisition of a number of other pharmacy chains in Serbia, in 2022, including Pancevo-based AU Kod Suncanog Sata and Veliko Gradiste-based AU Selic (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on October 11, 2022), Belgrade-based K-Pharma (as reported on June 8, 2022), the Janja pharmacy chain (as reported on March 28, 2022), and the Zlatni Lav pharmacies (as reported on January 5, 2022).

NKO’s team included Partner Djordje Nikolic and Senior Associate Branko Jankovic.

Editor’s Note: After this article was published, CEE Legal Matters learned that sole practitioner Zvonko Subasa advised the seller.

The announced amendments to the Law on Foreigners and the Law on the Employment of Foreigners contain significant novelties. The most important changes relate to the simplified and digitized procedure for obtaining a residence and work permit for foreigners, new categories of foreigners who will be able to work and/or establish employment only based on residence permit, as well as the extended period of validity of permits.

For now, the amendments are still in the stage of draft bills in the process of public discussion, but if the changes are ultimately adopted as announced, it is expected that from 1 February 2024 the process of approving residence and employment of foreigners will be radically changed and simplified.

Single permit instead of work permit

In the line with the proposed amendments, the work permit will no longer exist and it will be replaced by a single residence and work permit (“Single Permit”). Single Permit will be obtained only electronically from the competent Ministry of Internal Affairs (“MIA“). The National Employment Service will receive documentation electronically from the MIA and it will evaluate whether the applicant meets the conditions for working in Serbia (without issuing a separate decision as before), and if necessary, it will automatically perform a labor market test. After this the MIA adopts a decision on issuing the Single Permit. The deadline for resolving a request for permit is only 15 days, and the Single Permit (as well as the residence permit) will be issued in the form of a personalized card with biometric data, a chip and a qualified electronic certificate, similar to the identity cards for domestic citizens and therefore can be used for e-

Administration and e-Tax services. The Single Permit and temporary residence permit will be valid for 3 years (currently temporary residency can be approved for up to one year) and can be extended for the same period.

The right to work without obtaining a permit

The categories of foreigners who will be allowed to work in Serbia without obtaining the Single Permit will be significantly expanded. Thus, in the future, foreigners who need a visa to enter Republic of Serbia will be allowed to work in Serbia only on the basis of visa D (long-stay visa), which is issued for a maximum of 180 days. Same applies to foreigners who receive a temporary residence permit based on family reunification, property ownership or for the purpose of studying. It is quite certain that digital nomads will be able to work in Serbia without obtaining the Single Permit (i.e. solely on the basis of residence permit). This will be known for certain when the by-laws are passed, for which the deadline for adoption is 6 months from the date of adoption of the amendments to the law.

Permanent residency

When it comes to permanent residency, the time period for acquiring the right to apply for permanent residency will be reduced to 3 years (currently, in order to be eligible a foreigner needs to reside in Serbia for at least 5 years). Also, foreigners with approved permanent residency will no longer have to obtain a personal work permit, but will be able to work solely on the basis of the permanent residency permit, and like foreigners with the Single Permit and temporary residency, they will receive an identity card with a chip containing a qualified electronic certificate. Eligibility for permanent residency will be extended to “foreigners of Serbian descent” in addition to “foreigners with origins from the Republic of Serbia” (which is the current wording).

Other amendments to the law

Some of the novelties refer to the fact that the obligations of the inviter (the person who submits the invitation letter) are now regulated in more detail as well as the collection of accommodation costs for foreigners who are forcibly removed. The issuance of visas in electronic form will be made possible and in case of change of the basis of work or the employer it is envisaged that the National Employment Service will issue consent to that change electronically (currently issuing of a new work permit is necessary).

All these novelties should significantly liberalize the labor market in the Republic of Serbia, which means that in the future foreigners will be able to resolve their residence and labor legal status more easily. According to the explanation of the proposer of the law, the need to liberalize the labor market arose due to the frequent occurrence of deficit jobs and decrease of the unemployment rate. It remains to be seen whether the drafts law will be adopted, as well as what the envisaged by-laws will bring about.

By Damjan Despotovic, Milorad Glavan, Partners, DNVG Attorneys

The history of artificial intelligence can be traced back to the 1950s, when researchers and computer scientists first explored the possibility of creating machines which could accomplish tasks typically performed by humans. Since then, AI has undergone several significant phases of development, each of which has been marked by essential landmarks and milestones. In 1997, IBM’s Deep Blue computer famously defeated world chess champion Garry Kasparov. In recent years, AI has seen the development of deep learning and neural networks capable of processing large amounts of data and making complex predictions.

AI solutions have been around for a while, even though most of us are unaware of them. Google, Samsung Research, Tesla’s cars, have been using AI, while we have talked to Siri and Alexa for quite some time. However, there was no “conversation” with any of them, as they could not pick up the context, let alone read between the lines.

That’s exactly what ChatGPT can do — understand you and generate accurate content and well-structured answers. This is the reason why ChatGPT represents such a breakthrough, as it shows signs of ”human-like understanding“ on an entirely new level, especially compared to Siri or Alexa. Nevertheless, we do not even know what this ChatGPT’s “new level” is as with every new version ChatGPT makes new breakthroughs and reaches new possibilities. For instance, on the release page of GPT-4, OpenAI claims that ChatGPT can pass the bar exam with top 10% score, whereas the previous version (3.5) scored among the bottom 10%.

When asked to define artificial intelligence (“AI”), ChatGPT answered: ”Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to the simulation of human intelligence in machines designed to think and act like humans.”

In a nutshell, AI is a set of algorithms that quickly process vast amounts of data, simulating human intelligence. Although the ultimate objective is to improve our lives, AI carries many risks and challenges and it’s up to humanity to deal with them.

The emergence of these technologies raises important questions that must be addressed, both by and for legal professionals. There are potential effects of ChatGPT on the law and rules we have been applying for so long.

Who is entitled to the copyright if I ask ChatGPT to write a song for me? I? ChatGPT? Microsoft? Is utilizing AI in any manner considered plagiarism? Who would be liable for damages AI caused?

Since students were quick to start (ab)using ChatGPT, universities needed to react by banning AI. Interestingly, they use AI to detect whether an AI was used for student work. Businesses also jumped into using the powers of AI, where the case of CNET is mostly discussed.

In addition, AI systems rely on collecting and analyzing vast amounts of data, including potentially sensitive personal information, in performing tasks and making decisions, which may lead to privacy violations if not adequately secured.

Another major concern with AI is that it may cause massive layoffs and increase unemployment. Many jobs are at risk of becoming obsolete. Accounting, for example, where AI could automate most tasks, such as data entry, financial reporting, and tax compliance, eliminating the need for a human to get involved or, at least, reducing the time required for completing such processes. Similarly, AI may affect logistics, manufacturing, healthcare, IT, finance, and other industries.

New technology will require new rules. Specific legislation is still under development and we have yet to determine the kind of impact improved AI will have on everyday life. We are already familiar with some of the bills.

The EU AI Act, published in 2021, focuses on protecting human rights. This regulation practically distinguishes the AI application into four risk categories. The first category is the unacceptable risk of AI applications which are banned, such as social scoring. The second category is the AI of high-risk applications, such as using ai in education, law enforcement, biometric identification, and employment (e.g., CV scanning tools), which are subject to specific legal requirements. The third are AI applications with limited risks which are subject to certain transparency obligations (e.g., chatbots will need to announce to the users that they are speaking to a machine). Lastly, the fourth category is the AI of minimal-risk applications which face fewer restrictions. This proposal aims to set harmonized rules for the development, marketing, and usage of AI systems in the Union, and transparency obligations for specific AI systems.

In addition, the United States AI Bill of Rights lays out five principles, each accompanied by technical guidance, for responsible AI implementation. These principles include ensuring safe and effective systems, protecting against algorithmic discrimination, guaranteeing data privacy, providing notice and explanation of AI usage, and offering alternative options for those who wish to opt out.

In general, the guiding principles for AI regulation in the Western world aim to balance promoting innovation and growth in AI with protecting human rights and addressing ethical considerations. This includes ensuring that the development and deployment of AI do not violate fundamental human rights, holding individuals and organizations accountable for the impacts of AI systems, and requiring AI systems to be transparent in their decision-making processes. Legislators are also becoming increasingly interested in addressing liability issues connected to AI, ensuring that protection from harmful effects is at the same level as with any other technology.

On the other side, China introduced the Internet Information Service Algorithmic Recommendation Management Provisions that regulate how businesses using AI can use algorithms to make recommendations. The provisions require service providers to inform users about the nature of the algorithmic recommendation services they offer. They must give users the option to opt out of being targeted based on their personal characteristics.

Serbia also touched base on AI through the 2020-2025 AI Development Strategy. The strategy focuses on improving the general economic situation in Serbia with AI development, but also recognizes the benefits of implementing artificial intelligence in public administration, medicine, and healthcare, as well as in traffic and road infrastructure. As Serbia’s legal framework follows EU standards, the strategy includes European principles such as non-discrimination, transparency, security, and human oversight.

Given the numerous initiatives underway to regulate AI globally, it’s too soon to predict the precise form these regulations will take, particularly with the rapidly evolving nature of technology.

These are exciting and challenging times for all stakeholders. Addressing AI concerns through regulatory solutions requires a multi-disciplinary approach involving technology developers, policymakers, researchers, and society. The complexity of the task is immense and first requires thorough comprehension of all the potential uses of the new technology to create equally novel legal frameworks.

By Nemanja Sladakovic, Senior Associate, Gecic Law

When calculating the cost of running a business, companies typically tend to analyze factors such as labor cost, operating expenses, marketing and advertising, inventory, insurance, and taxes. Only, what happens when unexpected costs occur, such as a security data breach exposing the customers’ personal data to unauthorized parties? And is it still reasonable to consider such costs as unexpected?

A couple of decades ago, most companies did not perceive the likelihood of suffering a data breach as high, as this was something they only rarely heard of happening to others. However, in today’s digital age, data breaches have become an all too common occurrence for companies of all sizes. Simply put, a data breach is every security incident in which an entity gains access to another entity’s information without authorization. This may include both unintentional breaches (such as when an employee accidentally sends protected data to an incorrect email address) as well as deliberate and financially motivated breaches targeting sensitive data in the company’s possession.

This can lead to significant costs for companies that fall victim to these breaches.

Based on the report from IBM Security, in 2022 the companies spent a whopping 4.4 million dollars on average for handling a single data breach, which is a 2.6% increase from the previous year and a 13% jump since 2020. The shocking amount was calculated in IBM’s yearly report, where data breaches experienced by 550 organizations around the world were analyzed. It also seems this increasing trend will continue, as Acronis, a global leader in cyber protection, speculates that the figure might reach 5 million dollars in 2023.

Of course, not all industries are equally affected – the costliest data breaches are the ones hitting the healthcare, pharmaceutical, retail, financial, and energy sectors. Together with the tech sector, these industries are also the ones most often targeted by ransomware attackers, where the average ransom payout has now reached more than 258,000 dollars, according to BlackFog’s report The State of Ransomware in 2022.

Now, 4.4 million US dollars does not just come out of nowhere all at once. Unfortunately, paying the ransom is often just the beginning, as in many cases the recovery projects cost more than the original ransom itself. This figure partly consists of direct financial costs the companies face when investigating, containing, and repairing a breach, including notifications made to authorities and customers, paying the regulatory fines imposed, as well as legal fees, compensations, and settlements resulting from customer lawsuits.

As a recent example, T-Mobile has agreed to a 555 million dollar settlement (350 million in compensation and 150 million to invest in improving its data security), in a class action lawsuit filed by its customers, over a data breach where personal information of more than 76 million people was exposed.

In addition, there are also downtime costs associated with the disruption to business operations that can result from a data breach. When a company’s systems are compromised, it may have to shut down operations temporarily to investigate and fix the issue. This can lead to lost productivity and revenue, as well as increased costs associated with getting systems back up and running. According to Statista, the average company experiences almost three weeks of downtime when successfully targeted by a ransomware incident.

Reputational costs are also particularly hard to swallow – when a company’s customers’ data is breached, they may lose trust in the company and choose to take their business elsewhere. This can result in a decline in revenue and market share, as well as a tarnished reputation that can be difficult to repair.

The costs of data breaches can also include indirect costs such as the loss of intellectual property or trade secrets. A breach can expose valuable information about a company’s products or services, giving competitors an unfair advantage, which can ultimately lead to lost revenue and market share.

What happens when a company comes across such high costs? It often passes them onto customers by increasing the prices of goods and services, which over half of the businesses in IBM’s report admitted to doing. This effectively turns into a vicious cycle of further costs generated from the decrease in sales, since many customers simply do not wish or cannot afford the increased prices.

When the risk of such detrimental effects can be mitigated by businesses simply investing into preventive measures beforehand (some of which are not even that expensive, such as implementing basic privacy policies and procedures), one might pose a question as to why this is not yet standard practice. Perhaps because the actual costs to be borne now seem less attractive than the potential costs that may come into play in the future if the data breach occurs at all. It seems to be a bit of a gambling issue: the companies refrain from investing into preventive measures, betting they will not suffer a data breach in the end, and hoping to save the prevention money they would otherwise spend in vain.

If there is one certainty in gambling, it is that the house always wins. Same as with casinos, these days it is not if but when a data breach will happen, making this a poor bet. Therefore, though it might appear expensive to invest in preventive measures, that is just a fraction of the money it can – and likely will – save a business down the line.

It is therefore critical for companies to regulate their internal privacy procedures and invest in strong cybersecurity measures, so as to be prepared to respond quickly and effectively in the event of a breach. Matters such as where the data is stored, how it is encrypted, and who has access to it have a huge impact on data security and the company’s business in general. Regulating this can help mitigate the costs of a breach and protect the long-term viability of the business.

Although data protection lawyers prefer advising clients on data protection policies upfront, you can also count on us being happy to assist with filing data breach notifications and picking-up pieces after the breach occurs. You can safely bet on that if gambling is indeed your thing.

By Goran Radosevic, Partner, Karanovic & Partners

Pursuant to the provisions of the Labor Law (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 24/2005, 61/2005, 54/2009, 32/2013, 75/2014, 13/2017 – decision of the US, 113/2017 and 95/2018 – authentic interpretation) (“the Law”), by an employment contract the employer and the employee may establish the probation period for performance of one or more related jobs specified in that contract.

Probation period is regulated in the Law in only one article (Article 36), which further stipulates that probation period can last up to six months, as well as that it can be terminated both before and on the day of expiration of the term specified in the employment contract.

Namely, the Law prescribes that before the expiration of the time for which the probation period has been contracted, the employer or the employee may cancel the employment contract, with a notice period that cannot be shorter than five working days. The employer is obliged to provide rationale for the termination of the employment contract. On the other hand, an employee who has not demonstrated appropriate work and professional skills during the probation period will have their employment terminated on the day of expiry of the term specified in the employment contract.

Procedure for termination of employment

In addition to the manner of cancellation, i.e., termination of the employment contract during the probation period, the Law prescribes a special procedure for the termination of the employment contract (i) due to a (culpable) violation of work obligation, i.e., non-compliance with work discipline by the employee, as well as (ii) in the case there is a justified reason for termination that relates to the employee’s ability to work and their behavior, specifically if the employee does not achieve work results or does not have the necessary knowledge and skills to perform their tasks.

Namely, the Law stipulates that the employer will, before termination of the employment contract in the case referred to in Article 179, para. 2 and 3 of the Law (due to the violation of work obligation, i.e., non-compliance with work discipline), warn the employee in writing about the existence of a reason for termination of the employment contract, and provide them with a deadline of at least eight days from the day of delivery of this warning to respond to the statements of the warning.

In addition to the above, the Law prescribes that the employer may terminate the employment contract (or impose one of the measures from Article 179a of the Law) to the employee from Article 179, para. 1, point 1 of the Law (who does not achieve work results or does not have the necessary knowledge and skills) if he previously delivered to the respective employee a written notice regarding deficiencies in their work, as well as instructions and an appropriate deadline for improving the work, and the employee does not improve the work within the provided deadline.

In addition to the violation of work obligations, i.e., non-compliance with work discipline, and failure to achieve work results, i.e., lack of necessary knowledge and skills, the Law prescribes other reasons for employment termination as well (Article 179).

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation

In the judgement of the Supreme Court of Cassation passed on May 5, 2022, under the no. Rev2 2140/2021 (“the Judgement”), the subject court has taken the position that an employment contract with the probation period can be canceled prior to the expiration of the term for which probation period was contracted, but if there are grounds for cancellation set out by the Law.

The Judgment further states that the provisions of the Law on termination reasons and procedure apply accordingly to the case of termination of an employment contract with probation period. Thus, as in the specific case the plaintiff’s employment contract was canceled before the expiration of the period for which probation period was contracted, the defendant as the employer was obliged to notify the plaintiff in writing of the deficiencies in their work and provide them instructions and an appropriate deadline for improving the work. Namely, regardless of the established probation period, in order for the employment contract to be canceled one of the reasons for termination stipulated by the Law must be determined.

The Judgement represents an unexpected and unusual position taken in judicial practice on this issue, for several reasons.

Namely, it differs from the previous practice in this regard – both judicial and Opinion of the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy no. 011-885/2008-02 from February 4, 2008, according to which provisions of the Law, which stipulate the obligation to issue the written warning to the employee, do not apply to the termination of employment contract by the employer during the probation period, i.e., upon expiry of probation period, in terms of Article 36 of the Law. In addition, one could question the foundation of conclusions presented in the Judgment in the context of the Law, since in this case they were interpreted quite extensively – while the probation period essentially represents an exception compared with the general regime of employment relations, i.e., their establishment, therefore it should be narrowly interpreted.

Specifically, when prescribing the procedure for termination of an employment contract, the Law explicitly refers to the provisions that regulate the reasons for termination for which the procedure in question is applied; namely (i) it prescribes the obligation to issue a written warning to the employee in a situation where the reason for termination is a (culpable) violation of work obligation, i.e., non-compliance with work discipline; while (ii) the obligation to issue a written notice (in relation to work deficiencies and instructions for their overcoming) in stipulated with respect to the case when the reason for termination is failure to achieve work results, i.e., lack of necessary knowledge and skills.

However, the provisions in question do not mention the cancellation of the employment contract during the probation period, while on the other hand the provisions of Article 36 of the Law, which regulate the probation period, prescribe that both the employee and the employer, during this period, i.e., before its expiration, may cancel the employment contract with a notice period that cannot be shorter than five working days, whereby the employer is obliged to explain the cancellation of the employment contract. The Law, however, does not prescribe the content of the subject explanation, i.e., does not establish that termination in this case is possible only if there are reasons stipulated by Article 179 of the Law, i.e., the existence of which the employer is obliged to explain.

Finally, this position of the court is contrary to the substance of the institute of probation period, and the purpose of its contracting thus becomes futile.

Therefore, it remains to be seen what implications the Judgment will have on the positions, i.e., judgments of the lower courts in the proceedings that are being conducted, i.e., which will be conducted in the future in relation to the termination of employment contract during the probation period.

By Lara Maksimovic, Senior Associate, PR Legal

Gecic Law has announced the launch of its Artificial Intelligence & Robotics practice in Serbia, to be headed by Founding Partner Bogdan Gecic.

“The new practice area will focus on the opportunities and challenges of emerging technological advancements transforming the business world and our daily lives, including artificial intelligence, machine learning, robotics, and data analytics,” Gecic Law reported. “The new practice will focus on the needs of businesses developing and applying solutions in this increasingly prominent area.”

“Innovation is an integral part of our firm’s DNA,” Bogdan Gecic commented. “By launching this practice, the first of its kind in the region, we demonstrate our commitment to those emerging fields that bring extraordinary benefits to our lives but often test the traditional boundaries of the law. We are here to help businesses that develop and use these technologies navigate the regulation and devise solutions to these challenges with creativity – across practice areas, industries, and jurisdictions.”

Bojovic Draskovic Popovic & Partners has advised e-commerce investor Accel Club on opening an office in Belgrade.

“The start-up currently operates in more than 20 countries, with the US being the primary market, while Belgrade is on its way to becoming an important office that is actively expanding,” BD2P informed.

Founded in 2021 in Delaware, the US, Accel Club is an Amsterdam-headquartered e-commerce aggregator and accelerator. The company buys brands, products, reviews, and inventory and focuses on branding and promoting products, defining pricing strategies, and performance marketing.

“We acquire successful and fast-growing brands that sell their goods on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, Wallmart, but also on other e-commerce channels,” Accel Club CFO Ruslan Khabibov commented. “We are integrating businesses within our channels to increase sales and brand presence in key markets such as the US, Canada, and Europe.”

After the publication of the draft of the Law on Amendments to the Law on Spatial Planning and Construction, a series of public hearings on the proposed draft law was held in February 2023, and now we are waiting for the final wording of the proposal of the amendments and the lawmaker’s response to the of proposals and objections raised during the public hearings.
The draft envisages numerous amendments to the law, the most striking of which is the amendment related to the conversion of the right of use on construction land into the right of ownership (conversion).

The current version of the Law on Spatial Planning and Construction regulates the issue of conversion without compensation, thus affirming the principle that the conversion of the right of use into the right of ownership can be carried out without compensation (in which case the Law on Planning and Construction applies), or with compensation (in which case a special Law on converting the right of use into the right of ownership on construction land for a fee applies). The Law on Spatial Planning and Construction precisely prescribes that the conversion without compensation is applied in all cases except when the applicants are the entities whose position is not regulated by the special Law on converting the right of use into the right of ownership on construction land with compensation.

The proposed act of the Law on Amendments to the Law on Spatial Planning and Construction deletes the explicit distinction between “conversion without compensation” and “conversion with compensation”. The consequence of this change should be the automatic (ex officio) conversion of the right of use into the right of ownership on construction land immediately after the proposed changes enter into force. The conversion with compensation should be applied only to certain type of entities (sport societies, agriculture and housing cooperatives and the entities incorporated under the former Yugoslavia succession agreements), and their position should be regulated by a separate law.

The effect of this change means the releasing of the large number of entities from the obligation to pay the compensation for conversion in order to proceed with the investment and enabling them to exercise that right free of charge.

On the other hand, it is unclear what will be the fate of the Law on converting the right of use into the right of ownership on construction land with compensation – whether this law will be repealed in its entirety, or only harmonized in a part that would be in direct contradiction with the provisions of the draft Law on amendments to the Law on Spatial Planning and Construction. This issue is particularly important when considering the provisions limiting the possibility to carry out the conversion – especially in case of publicly owned land that may be only in the public ownership.

In addition to this amendment, the draft Law on Amendments to the Law on Planning and Construction foresees a number of other changes:

• Changes aiming to encourage green construction and improving energy efficiency;
• Changes aiming to protect immovable cultural heritage, including the provision of conservation supervision;
• Introduction of the function of Chief State Urban Planner;
• Formation of the Spatial Planning and Urban Planning Agency of the Republic of Serbia, as the bearer of public powers, that is, a public agency.

By Ivan Petrovic, Partner and Marija Vukcevic, Senior Associate, JPM Jankovic Popovic Mitic