Category: Serbia

On 10 January 2025, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the U.S. Department of Treasury’s issued a Determination pursuant to Section 1(a)(i) of Executive Order 14024 (“the EO 14024 Determination”) and a Determination pursuant to Section 1(a)(ii) of Executive Order 14071 (“the EO 14071 Determination”).

Determination under EO 14024 specifies that Section 1(a)(i) of Executive Order 14024 applies to the energy sector of the Russian Federation’s economy, and that any entity found to be operating or having operated in this sector is subject to sanctions under this provision. These determinations are key measures of U.S. foreign policy as part of a broader strategy to exert economic pressure on Russia through sanctions.

In connection with these determinations, OFAC keeps a Specially Designated Nationals (“SDN”) list, which includes individuals and entities subject to sanctions. The consequence of being placed on the SDN list is a prohibition on financial transactions, asset freezing, and a ban on doing business with U.S. persons and entities, as well as with any international entities that engage with the U.S.

In light of geopolitical developments, particularly the conflict in Ukraine, the SDN list has been significantly expanded. In this context, the largest Russian oil company, Gazprom Neft, is one of the entities that has been sanctioned. Additionally, sanctions have been extended to: 1) companies in which Gazprom Neft has a direct or indirect ownership stake of 50% or more, and 2) companies that are not on the SDN list but in which Gazprom Neft’s subsidiaries, which are on the SDN list, hold such a stake. Sanctions include a prohibition on providing any financial contributions, goods, or services to or for the benefit of sanctioned entities, as well as receiving such contributions from sanctioned entities.

The updated SDN list now includes NIS AD Novi Sad (“Petroleum Industry of Serbia”) and designates this company as being included under Executive Order 14024 due to its affiliation with Gazprom Neft.

In practice, the consequence of sanctions on NIS AD Novi Sad is that its future operations are jeopardized, as other business entities and financial institutions may cease cooperation due to the risk of secondary sanctions—that is, the risk of themselves becoming subject to sanctions for doing business with sanctioned entities. The question arises as to how sanctions will affect cooperation between JANAF d.d. and NIS AD Novi Sad, as well as what possible solutions and business and strategic negotiations will ensure further energy security and stability, bearing in mind that NIS AD Novi Sad supplies oil through their oil pipeline. The cooperation of NIS AD Novi Sad with other participants in the oil market should also be considered in light of the sanctions.

Entities placed on the SDN list can challenge their designation by submitting a Request for Administrative Review (“Request”) to OFAC. OFAC allows persons or entities placed on the SDN list to request their removal by filing a Request for review. 

Along with the Request, the entity must provide relevant evidence or information that may be pertinent to the decision-making process: 1) details of the person or entity that is submitting the request; 2) a detailed explanation of why the person or the entity should be removed from the SDN list; 3) arguments and evidence demonstrating that the person or the entity is incorrectly listed or that the circumstances that led to its listing have changed. 

OFAC will review the Request, after which it may request clarification, confirmation, or additional information. The U.S. Department of State will consider all relevant circumstances before making a final decision.

By Jelena Gazivoda, Senior Partner, Nikola Djordjevic, Partner, Marko Mrdja, Senor Associate, and Jana Stanojevic, Associate, JPM Partners

ZSP has advised NLB Komercijalna Banka on a EUR 45.5 million facility for Delta Real Estate for the refinancing of Crowne Plaza Belgrade.

Delta Real Estate operates in the field of residential, business, and commercial real estate development.

According to ZSP, Crown Plaza Belgrade is “one of the city’s landmarks and its largest hotel in terms of capacity.”

The ZSP team included Partner Jelisaveta Stanisic and Senior Associate Tijana Trivunovic.

Editor’s Note: After this article was published, DLA Piper informed CEE Legal Matters that it advised Erste Group Bank AG, Erste Bank Novi Sad, and UniCredit Bank Serbia as the exiting lenders regarding Crowne Plaza Hotel as well as with respect to the financing of an office complex in Belgrade operated by Delta Group. The firm’s team included Austria-based Partner Marcell Nemeth as well as further team members in London.

On 21 January 2025, the Serbian Commission for Protection of Competition submitted draft proposals to the Government for four new regulations concerning the exemption of certain categories of agreements from the prohibition of restrictive agreements.

The drafts were finalised following a public consultation and subsequent legal and technical revisions, which took place after their initial publication in July 2024.

The package includes an updated draft of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (“VBER”), along with new regulations addressing vertical agreements in the motor vehicle sector, agreements in the railway and road transport sectors, as well as technology transfer agreements.

These proposals aim to further align the Serbian antitrust regime with the EU, specifically the new Vertical Block Exemption Regulation and accompanying Vertical Guidelines issued by the European Commission. They also reflect recent market developments, particularly the growth of e-commerce and digital platforms, which have introduced novel forms of vertical relationships.

The final drafts incorporate several amendments stemming from the public consultation. A key revision involves the market share threshold for group exemptions in vertical agreements. The initial draft set this threshold at 25 % for both suppliers and buyers in their respective relevant markets but is now increased to 30 % to align with EU and regional rules. Still, certain discrepancies between the local and EU regime persist. For example, the new Serbian VBER introduces the concept of “shared exclusivity”, allowing a supplier to appoint up to three distributors per exclusive territory or customer group. In contrast, the EU regime provides for a limit of up to five distributors per exclusive territory or customer group.

The proposed regulations await Government approval. Once approved, market participants will have six months to align their agreements with the new requirements.

By Srdjana Petronijevic, Danijel Stevanovic, and Zoran Soljaga, Partners, and Nina Rasljanin, Attorney at Law, Schoenherr

Trademarks are more than just logos and brand names—they are powerful symbols that represent the values, quality, and recognition of a company or product. From the iconic swoosh of Nike to the golden arches of McDonald’s, well-known trademarks have become ingrained in our daily lives, shaping our consumer habits and perceptions.

These marks are often the result of years of marketing, innovation, and customer loyalty, transforming simple designs into symbols of trust and excellence. But what makes a trademark “well-known”? It’s the combination of recognition, history, and influence that makes these marks stand out in crowded marketplaces. In this world of branding, a strong trademark can be the key to success, making its owner a household name across the globe.

The first convention to regulate the well-known trademarks is the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (adopted in 1883). Article 6-bis of the Convention defines that:
The countries of the Union undertake, ex officio if permitted by their legislation, or at the request of an interested party, to refuse or cancel the registration, and to prohibit the use, of a trademark that constitutes a reproduction, imitation, or translation liable to create confusion of a mark considered by the competent authority of the country of registration or use to be well-known as the mark of a person entitled to the benefits of this Convention and used for identical or similar goods.

These provisions also apply when the essential part of the mark constitutes a reproduction or imitation liable to create confusion with a well-known mark. A period of at least five years is allowed for requesting the cancellation of such a mark. Additionally, countries of the Union may stipulate a specific timeframe within which the prohibition of use must be requested. However, no time limit is fixed for requesting the cancellation or prohibition of use for marks registered or used in bad faith.

What are Well-Known Trademarks?

Well-known trademarks are those that have achieved widespread recognition and distinctiveness beyond the specific goods or services they represent.

However, determining whether a trademark is well-known or not can sometimes be a complex and nuanced process.

To facilitate and unify the process of assessing whether a trademark has become well-known, the Assembly of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property and the General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) at the thirty-fourth series of Meetings of the Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO, held on September 20 to 29, 1999, have adopted Joint Recommendations concerning provisions on the protection of Well-Known Marks.

Factors for consideration

According to Article 2 of these Joint recommendations, in determining whether a mark is a well-known mark, the competent authority shall take into account any circumstances from which it may be inferred that the mark is well known. In particular, the competent authority shall consider information submitted to it with respect to factors from which it may be inferred that the mark is, or is not, well known, including, but not limited to, information concerning the following the criteria for assessing well-known marks include:

1. The degree of knowledge or recognition of the mark in the relevant sector of the public. The degree of knowledge or recognition of the mark can be determined through consumer surveys and opinion polls. 
2. The duration, extent, and geographical area of use of the mark. The duration, extent, and geographical reach of the mark’s use are highly relevant indicators of its recognition and status as well-known by the relevant sector of the public.
3. The duration, extent, and geographical area of any promotion of the mark, including advertising or publicity and the presentation, at firs or exhibitions, of the goods and/or services to which the mark applies. This includes the duration and geographical area of promotion activities, such as advertising and participation at fairs or exhibitions. Promotion can occur through various media, including print and digital channels.
4. The duration and geographical area of any registrations, and/or any applications for registration, of the mark, to the extent that they reflect use or recognition of the mark. The duration and geographical extent of registrations and applications for registration of the mark reflect its use and recognition. The number of global registrations serves as a strong indicator of a mark’s widespread recognition, even if owned by multiple entities within a group. 
5. The record of successful enforcement of rights in the mark, in particular, the extent to which the mark was recognized as well known by competent authorities
6. The Value associated with the mark. The inherent value of a mark may be assessed through various valuation methods. This criterion acknowledges that the value may indicate whether the mark is widely recognized.

Additional Considerations

While the criteria outlined serve as guidelines for assessing whether a mark is well-known, they are not strict prerequisites for making a determination. In some cases, all criteria may be relevant, while in others, only a few may apply. In certain situations, additional factors may also influence the decision, which could be considered alone or in conjunction with the listed criteria.

In summary, well-known trademarks play a significant role in intellectual property law, and the above criteria ensure a comprehensive assessment of their recognition and protection.

By Ivana Jevtic Nikolova, Partner, JPM (North Macedonia)

This article analyzes the Decision of the Italian Data Protection Commissioner (“Commissioner“) No. 472 of July 17, 2024 (“Decision“), which concerns the monitoring of employees’ official computers and emails, and the protection of personal data in accordance with Italian regulations and the General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union, which was adopted on April 14, 2016, and came into force on May 25, 2018 (“GDPR”).

Relevant Provisions of the GDPR

Article 5 of the GDPR outlines the principles regarding the processing of personal data. Personal data must be:

• Processed lawfully, fairly, and transparently in relation to the individuals whose data is being processed (lawfulness, fairness, and transparency principle);
• Collected for specific, legitimate purposes and not further processed in a way that is incompatible with those purposes. Further processing for archiving in the public interest, for scientific or historical research, or statistical purposes is not considered incompatible with the initial purposes, according to Article 89(1) GDPR (purpose limitation principle);
• Adequate, relevant, and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed (data minimization principle);
• Accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; all reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that inaccurate personal data is erased or rectified without delay (accuracy principle);
• Kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data is processed. Personal data may be stored for longer if processed solely for archiving in the public interest, for scientific or historical research, or for statistical purposes, in accordance with Article 89(1) GDPR, provided that appropriate technical and organizational measures prescribed by GDPR are implemented to protect the rights and freedoms of the data subjects (storage limitation principle);
• Processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorized or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction, or damage, using appropriate technical or organizational measures (integrity and confidentiality principle).

The data controller is responsible for, and must be able to demonstrate compliance with, paragraph 1 of this article (accountability principle).

Thus, any processing that does not comply with the aforementioned principles of the GDPR is unlawful and constitutes a violation of individuals’ personal data.

Factual Background

On June 6, 2024, the Commissioner issued revised guidelines regarding the management of email at the workplace. These guidelines narrowed the strict requirements for data retention and processing, applying them only to email metadata and excluding the content of emails from their scope, thus reducing the employer’s obligations.

A specific issue arose when a former employee claimed to the Commissioner that his former employer had accessed his business email account after his employment had terminated.

The company admitted to using forensic tools to access backup copies of emails as part of an internal investigation into alleged illegal appropriation of business secrets. The emails were later used as evidence in legal proceedings. The company justified its actions by citing legitimate business interests and argued that it was in compliance with the privacy notice sent to the employee.

Decision of the Commissioner

In this case, the Commissioner issued a decision in which it found violations of several principles under Article 5 of the GDPR:

• Data retention limitation and data minimization principles, as the company systematically created backup copies of emails during the employment period and retained them for up to three years after the employment terminated. The Commissioner considered this retention period to be too long and unsupported by clear and specific justifications.
• Lawfulness, fairness, and transparency principles, as the company’s privacy notice did not provide key details, such as extended retention of backup copies and the possibility of accessing email content after the employment relationship terminated.
• Purpose limitation principle, as although the company claimed the software was used for IT security and business continuity purposes, the Commissioner deemed its use exceeded these purposes, including the use of emails in legal proceedings.

Finally, the Commissioner found that the employer’s actions were contrary to applicable Italian legislation on employee monitoring, which requires prior agreement with trade unions or approval from a relevant authority. In this context, the systematic retention of emails for an extended period was considered a form of indirect remote monitoring of employees’ activities.

As a result, the Commissioner imposed a fine of EUR 80,000 on the company.

Conclusion

The Commissioner’s decision confirms that email monitoring must balance business interests with employees’ right to privacy, and such employer actions will be subject to stricter review by data protection authorities and courts.

In this regard, the employer is required to inform employees about the processing of their data in accordance with the GDPR and to adhere to the GDPR’s provisions when processing this data.

The implications of the decision are significant, as emails and their metadata are frequently used for internal investigations and to determine employee contract breaches and disciplinary accountability.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Should you require additional information, feel free to contact us.

By Borinka Dobrnjac, Senior Associate, PR Legal 

Moravcevic, Vojnovic and Partners in cooperation with Schoenherr has advised RP Global on the sale of 100 % of the share capital in a portfolio comprising a 200-megawatt onshore wind power project located east of Belgrade and a 768-megawatt pipeline of wind and solar projects in Serbia to Alcazar Energy Partners.

RP Global is a renewable energy developer.

Alcazar Energy Partners is a renewable energy investor.

The Schoenherr team included Partners Milos Lakovic and Jovan Barovic, Attorneys at Law Katerina Kalovanova-Toshkova and Marija Grujeska, and Associate Vukasin Stankovic.

Schoenherr did not respond to our inquiry on the matter.

Although more than six years have passed since the adoption of the new Personal Data Protection Law (the “Law“), there are still practical uncertainties about when data controllers and processors must appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO). Additionally, many foreign data controllers and processors subject to the Law have yet to fulfill their obligation to appoint a representative for personal data protection. This lack of compliance makes it harder for individuals to exercise their rights when it comes to the processing of their personal data.

Based on our extensive experience in this field, we’ve summarized the key aspects of these two issues below.

• DPO

According to the Law, similarly to the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), data controllers and processors are required to appoint a DPO in specific situations. These include:

• regular and systematic monitoring – when their core activities involve processing operations that, by their nature, require regular and systematic monitoring of a large number of individuals (e.g., surveillance services provided by video monitoring agencies);
• large-scale processing of sensitive date – when special categories of personal data (such as data on religion, ethnicity, race, political opinions, genetic or biometric data) are processed on a large scale;
• processing by public authorities – when processing is carried out by public authorities (e.g., government bodies, local governments or public institutions).

To enhance personal data protection and mitigate the risks of unlawful data processing, data controllers and processors can voluntarily appoint a DPO. This can be an internal employee or, in cases where no internal candidate has sufficient knowledge of data protection regulations, an external expert. In such instances, external DPOs are often law firms with experience and expertise in personal data protection.

If a DPO is appointed, controllers and processors must inform the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection about the appointment.

• Representative of Foreign Controller and Processor

 The Law applies not only to data controllers and processors based in Serbia but also to foreign entities that offer goods or services to individuals in Serbia or monitor the activities of individuals within Serbia. In such cases, foreign controllers and processors may be required to appoint a representative in Serbia to facilitate communication with Serbian individuals and ensure better protection of their data.

While some companies have appointed representatives in Serbia (typically law firms), many foreign controllers and processors have not fulfilled this obligation. Given the scale of their business operations in Serbia, many of them are likely obliged to do it. Failure to appoint a representative, despite being legally obligated, exposes these entities to potential sanctions. These may include bans on data processing or the export of data outside Serbia—measures that could significantly affect their operations in the country.

By addressing these requirements, both local and foreign entities can ensure compliance with the Law, minimize risks, and build trust with individuals whose data they process.

This text is written for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. We are at your disposal for any additional information.

By Milorad Glavan, Partner, DNVG Attorneys

The German Law on the Corporate Due Diligence Obligations for the Prevent of Human Rights Violations in Supply Chains introduces for the first time the obligation for German companies to comply with certain procedures and rules, implement due diligence obligations and appropriate measures, in supply chains, with the aim of preventing human rights violations and damages to the environment. The mentioned German Law does not have a direct impact on companies in Serbia, so the sanctions prescribed by that Law cannot be enforced in Serbia, however, there is a certain influence on Serbian companies that will need to comply with, for reasons of further cooperation with German companies.

Leaving the voluntary concept of Corporate Social Responsibility in Germany, with the adoption of the Law on Corporate Due Diligence Obligations for the Prevention of Human Rights Violations in Supply Chains (the Law – in German: Gesetz über die unternehmerischen Sorgfaltspflichten zur Vermeidung von Menschenrechtsverletzungen in Lieferketten – LkSG), for the first time, the companies in Germany are formally legally obliged to comply with the defined due diligence obligations in the supply chains (starting from the extraction of raw materials to the delivery to the end customers) in the fields of human rights and environmental protection.

The Law is based on international guidelines and principles such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the human rights conventions of the International Labor Organization, and three specific environmental conventions (Minamata Convention, Stockholm Convention, and the Basel Convention). It entered into force on January 1, 2023. It was then applied to German companies with at least 3,000 employees, while starting from January 1, 2024, it also applies to companies based in Germany with at least 1,000 employees, regardless of their legal form.

Under the supply chain, the Law includes all products and services of a company, and the chain consists of all the steps, both in the country and abroad, that are necessary for the production of products and the provision of services, starting from the extraction of raw materials, until the delivery of the same to the end customer, and includes:

• the company’s actions in the field of its own business (any activity undertaken by the company in order to achieve the business goal, i.e., any activity aimed at the production and sale of products and the provision of services, regardless of whether it is carried out in a place in the country or abroad. In affiliated companies, the parent company’s own business also includes a group company if the parent company exercises a decisive influence on the group company),
• actions of the direct supplier (partner from the supply agreement or the provision of services, whose supplies are necessary for the production of the company’s products or for the provision and use of appropriate services), and
• actions of an indirect supplier (any company that is not a direct supplier and whose supplies are necessary for the production of the company’s products, or for the provision and use of appropriate services).

In accordance with the Law, companies are obliged to, within their supply chains, appropriately carry out due diligence obligations in the areas of human rights and environmental protection, with the aim of preventing risks in these areas, reducing damage to the environment, or ending violations of human rights or environmental protection rights.

Due Diligence obligations include:

1. establishing a risk management system (obligation to establish an appropriate and effective risk management system, with the aim of complying with the due diligence obligations, which should be grounded in all relevant business processes through appropriate measures);
2. determining internal competence in the company (by appointment of a human rights officer);
3. performing regular risk analyses (risk analysis measures in order to determine the risk of human rights violations and environmental risks regularly in the area of ​​own business for direct suppliers, and in the case of indirect suppliers when there is a specific reason for this);
4. issuing policy statement (related to strategy for human rights, for example by the adoption of a Code of Conduct);
5. establishment of adequate prevention measures in the field of own business towards direct suppliers;
6. taking remedial measures (if the company discovers that a violation of human rights or environment-related obligation has already occurred or is imminent in the area of ​​its own operations or at a direct supplier, it must take appropriate remedial measures, without delay, in order to prevent this violation, end or minimise the extent of this violation);
7. establishing a complaints procedure (obligation to establish internal complaint procedure at the level of the company);
8. implementing due diligence obligations with regard to risks of indirect suppliers (obligation of establishing a complaints procedure and adjusted risk management system);
9. documenting (the fulfillment of the duty of care is continuously documented internally in the company, and the documentation is kept within the stipulated period) and reporting (the company is obliged once a year to compile a report on the fulfillment of its due diligence for the past business year and to publish it publicly on its website within the stipulated period).

Violation of the obligations from the Law does not give rise to any liability under civil law, towards victims of violations of human rights and environmental protection, but for non-compliance, the Law stipulates fines for companies and restrictive measures in public procurement.

The mentioned German Law does not have a direct impact on companies in Serbia, it does not establish a direct obligation, thus the sanctions prescribed by that Law cannot be enforced in Serbia. It should be mentioned that all the conventions on which the German Law is based have been ratified in Serbia and are directly applied in Serbia, but there are no due diligence obligations or procedures for Serbian companies as prescribed by the German Law. However, German companies to which this Law applies are also obliged by that Law to carry out their due diligence procedures in Serbia, provided that they have their own representative office or branch, or if it is a subsidiary company over which the German company has a decisive influence, and which Serbian entities are suppliers to German company. Likewise, towards the Serbian company that is a contractual partner, i.e., the direct supplier of those German companies, while the due diligence obligations will be applied to those that are indirect suppliers when there is a specific reason in terms of the Law. Finally, Serbian companies that do business with companies in Germany, in order to further cooperate, will have to harmonize their operations with the obligations stipulated by the Law for the aforementioned German companies.

While with the global growth of industry, technology, and economy, in the race for profit and personal enrichment, there is at the same time an increasing risk of violation of human and environmental rights, we want to believe that by the introduction of such due diligence obligations in the corporate world, the awareness is spreading of its own responsibility and of necessity to adjust the business to the aim of prevention of human rights violation and environmental damages.

By Jelena Stankovic, Partner, and Mirjana Milosevic, Senior Associate, JPM & Partners

The Serbian Commission for Protection of Commission (“Commission“) has announced that it will conduct a sector inquiry of the state and conditions of competition in the pharmaceutical industry. This move by the Commission was expected, given the announcements made by the Government of the Republic of Serbia last year.

Sector inquiries are conducted if certain circumstances indicate potential antitrust violations, or the possibility of restricting, distorting, or preventing competition, in order for the Commission to further examine the state of competition in a particular industry.

The subject of the abovementioned inquiry is the market for medicines used in human medicine, with a special focus on medicines that are issued at the expense of the mandatory health insurance fund. The subject of the analysis includes price formation, market shares, competition conditions, market entry barriers, vertical relationships, and other relevant factors on this market.

Currently, questionnaires are being sent to pharmacy establishments with a larger number of retail outlets in order to collect data necessary for the analysis.

It is important to note that, as a result of the sector inquiry, the Commission may initiate an antitrust violation investigation if the analysis reveals indications of a potential antitrust violation. For example, this may occur if the Commission identifies the existence of restrictive agreements, after which it will initiate antitrust investigation ex officio.

By Nikola Poznanovic, Partner, and Katarina Rosic, Senior Associate, JPM & Partners

AP Legal and Dentons have advised NLB Komercijalna Banka Beograd and Nova Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana on a EUR 89 million facilities agreement to MK Fintel Wind Beograd.

According to AP Legal, the proceeds of the facilities were used to refinance a “previous syndicate of lenders which financed the development of Kosava 1 wind park located in Vrsac Municipality and for the financing of Kosava 2 wind park.”

The AP Legal team included Managing Partner Aleksandar Preradovic, Partner Aleksandra Jovic, and Senior Associate Dusan Preradovic.

The Dentons team included Bucharest-based Partner Simon Dayes and Senior Associate Lawrence Florescu, as well as additional lawyers in Duesseldorf.