Category: Serbia

  • BDK Advokati and Allen & Overy Advise on DoorDash Acquisition of Wolt

    BDK Advokati, working with lead counsel Allen & Overy in London, has advised DoorDash on the acquisition of Finnish food-delivery company Wolt Enterprises for EUR 7 billion. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Avance Attorneys also advised the buyer. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Roschier advised Wolt on the deal.

    According to BDK Advokati, “Helsinki-based Wolt operates in over 180 cities across 23 European countries, including Serbia. It has over 45,000 merchant partners, 90,000 courier partners, and 12 million registered customers (June 2021 figures).”

    DoorDash is an online food ordering and food delivery platform based in San Francisco. According to the annual report, as of December 31, 2020, the platform served 450,000 merchants, 20 million consumers, and 1 million deliverers.

    BDK Advokati’s team included Senior Partners Tijana Kojovic and Vladimir Dasic, Counsel Dragoljub Sretenovic, Attorneys Jelena Zelenbaba and Marija Gligorevic, and Junior Associates Anja Gligorevic and Jovana Dukovic.

    Editor’s note: After this article was published, Allen & Overy informed CEE Legal Matters of the composition of the firm’s team in the Czech Republic. It included Partner Prokop Verner, Associate Martin Bytcanek, and Junior Lawyers Viktor Vrablik and Jan Engelmann.

  • (Non)Use of Diacritics and Right to Correction of Incorrect Personal Data

    On October 9, 2019, the Court of Appeal of Brussels passed judgment 2019/AR/1006 whereby it established, pursuant to and in accordance with Article 16 of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), that banks are obliged to use correct diacritics when spelling clients’ names, since these are personal data, and therefore subject to accurate writing.

    Case Background

    Namely, a client requested from a bank, as controller of personal data in terms of the subject data regulation governing this matter at the EU level, to write his name with the appropriate diacritics (additions to letters that change pronunciation or make a distinction between similar words), which request the bank refused, claiming that it was not possible due to the characteristics of the computer system used at the time. After that, the client filed a complaint to the Belgian authority for personal data protection.

    In subsequent procedure, the aforementioned authority decided that the bank’s argument on technical impossibility was not sufficient, so the bank is obliged to act upon client’s request, which decision was appealed against by the bank. In the procedure upon the said appeal, the bank argued that this is not personal data, so provisions of GDPR cannot not be applied.

    Reasons of the Judgment

    However, according to the comprehension of the personal data protection authority, the acting Belgian court decided that provisions of Article 16 of the GDPR unreservedly grant the right to the data subject to request the rectification of incorrect personal data without delay.

    This also applies to the case where the client’s personal name is processed by computer program used by the bank, whereas the fact that the program concerned does not provide such possibility, and that adapting a computer system to correctly handle diacritics would take certain time and/or constitute additional costs for the bank, does not allow the bank to disregard the provisions of the GDPR, i.e. to properly spell personal data.

    Solution from the Serbian Law on Personal Data Protection and Domestic Practice in This Matter

    The current Serbian Law on Personal Data Protection, alike the GDPR, stipulates the right to rectify and supplement personal data (Article 29), indicating that a data subject shall have the right for his/her incorrect personal data to be rectified without undue delay, while, depending on the purpose of processing, the data subject may supplement his/her incomplete personal data, including the provision of additional statement.

    However, when it comes to practice, there are still no decisions of the domestic courts or the Commissioner regarding the obligation to use diacritics in personal names as personal data in terms of the said regulation.

    This article is to be considered as exclusively informative, with no intention to provide legal advice. If you should need additional information, please contact us directly.

    By Lara Maksimovic, Senior Associate, and Danica Nikitovic, Junior Associate, PR Legal

  • Freedom on the Net in Serbia – “Not Great, Not Terrible”

    Last month, Freedom House published its annual report on freedom on the Internet (the “Report”), where Serbia got 71 out of 100 points, thus taking the 15th place among 70 countries where the said research had been conducted.

    Freedom House Report

    According to the Report, Serbia’s internet freedom environment remains relatively open, featuring high levels of internet access, limited website blocking, and constitutional protection of freedom of speech and journalists. However, there has been an increase in disinformation spread by certain sites, and certain journalists faced not only harassment and threats in response to their reporting, but also criminal charges in relation thereto.

    Moreover, the Report notes that there has been pressure on independent media, the political opposition and civil society organisations, and the surveillance infrastructure also poses concerns, as law enforcement and security agencies have historically accessed telecommunications metadata without adhering to proper legal procedures.

    Violations of User Rights

    The Report gives special attention to violation of internet users’ rights, thus focusing on the following matters:

    1. Do the constitution or other laws fail to protect rights such as freedom of expression, access to information, and press freedom, including on the internet, and are they enforced by a judiciary that lacks independence?

    The Report enlists several provisions of Serbian regulations, notably the Constitution (articles 46, 50 and 51), Law on Public Information and Media (Article 52) and Criminal Code (Article 138, paragraph 3), which regulate the right to freedom of thought and expression, journalistic privilege and protection of journalists’ safety, which are nevertheless not implemented sustainably in practice.

    Namely, while the judiciary is nominally independent, it often comes under the influence of officials, and reports from the European Commission have noted that judicial reforms intended to bolster judicial independence have stalled.

    1. Are there laws that assign criminal penalties or civil liability for online activities, particularly those that are protected under international human rights standards?

    The Report points out that, although constitutional and legal provisions governing this matter are largely aligned with international standards, they could be abused, i.e. interpreted to enable penalisation of legitimate online activities, and justify repressive actions.

    An example for the above stated are provisions of Article 46, paragrah 2 and Article 50 of the Constitution.

    1. Are individuals penalized for online activities, particularly those that are protected under international human rights standards?

    The Report further notes that coverage period featured several cases in which users were sued or even detained for their online speech, and private lawsuits were filed against the media for alleged violation of honour and reputation, which is characterised as a clear example of their intimidation (considering that the lawsuits were not preceded by any denial, nor did they target specific news outlets).

    1. Does the government place restrictions on anonymous communication or encryption?

    The Report states that there are no legal repercussions for using encrypted services in Serbia, and there is no requirement for individuals to register with the government to use online services.

    However, there are initiatives of certain officials calling for legislation which would criminalize the possession of devices and other means that enable encrypted communication, and which would require citizens to provide accurate personal data when creating a social media content.

    1. Does state surveillance of internet activities infringe on users’ right to privacy?

    The Report further enlists several situations that occurred in the coverage period, which are problematic from the aspect of state surveillance of Internet activities, including the installation of surveillance cameras with facial recognition technology on the streets of Belgrade, as well as comments about unreleased articles and correspondence between journalists and their sources.

    1. Does monitoring and collection of user data by service providers and other technology companies infringe on users’ right to privacy?

    Although Serbia has a satisfactory regulatory framework on personal data protection, which is in line with international standards in the subject field, SHARE Foundation’s research on data retention practices in Serbia has revealed that state authorities access the metadata stored by telecommunication forms directly through “applications for independent access”, which are of dubious legality.

    Also, certain international technology companies are still to appoint their local representative for personal data protection in Serbia, which is their obligation under the Law on Personal Data Protection.

    1. Are individuals subject to extralegal intimidation or physical violence by state authorities or any other actor in relation to their online activities?

    During the coverage period, journalists faced several assaults, both online and offline, including verbal threats and physical assaults, destruction and confiscation of their equipment.

    Women journalists and women in general are exposed to special attacks, as well as the migrant population.

    1. Are websites, governmental and private entities, service providers, or individual users subject to widespread hacking and other forms of cyberattack?

    According to the Report, cyberattacks are relatively common in Serbia and civil society, and independent media outlets are often targeted.

    There is a special Prosecution for Cybercrime, but given the sheer number of incidents and the fact that it is the only authority tasked with such cases, it has struggled to keep up with a growing backlog, i.e. failure to take appropriate actions.

    This article is to be considered as exclusively informative, with no intention to provide legal advice. If you should need additional information, please contact us directly.

    By Lara Maksimovic, Senior Associate, PR Legal

  • International Franchise Handbook: Focus on Serbia

    Franchising may be an attractive proposition for many companies wishing to expand internationally. Take a look at this overview to discover the applicable franchise law in Serbia, covering the essentials for franchisors, the relevant areas of law, selected aspects such as fees, and dispute resolution and applicable law.

    ESSENTIALS

    about Serbia´s franchising law

    1. No specific regulation targeting franchising arrangements;
    2. Poor court practice due to which the subjects entering in franchising arrangements should consider some amount of legal uncertainty;
    3. Various examples of franchising arrangements in practice result in lack of adjusted and unified approach in resolving similar matters.

    RELEVANT AREAS OF LAW

    Legal basis of Franchise Law

    In Serbia, there is neither a legal definition of “franchise”, nor a codified franchise law. Serbian “franchise law” is currently developing mostly through the commercial practice and in rare court decisions; its implications result from many different areas of law, especially civil, commercial and corporate law.

    Corporate Law

    The most common corporate form to set up business in Serbia is a limited liability company (“DOO” in Serbian). It is easy to set up by one or more people and requires a minimum capital of approximately EUR 1. The company is liable to the creditors with its property that is separate from the shareholders’ property as a rule. The formation costs for a limited liability company are not high. Notwithstanding specifics of some industries, Serbian corporate law does not impose any general restrictions on foreign operations in Serbia, nor on franchise systems in particular.

    Consumer Protection

    Law Under Serbian consumer protection law, individuals seeking to become franchisees would not qualify as consumers, as they would be operating a business venture. If the franchisee is an entity such as a limited liability company or entrepreneur, consumer protection rules are not applicable.

    Employment Law

    In case where an entrepreneur (natural person registered with the commercial registry) is performing franchise services for the legal entity and fulfils five (5) out of nine (9) criteria defined by the local law (so called “independence test”), this income which they receive as an entrepreneur will have a treatment of “other income” and would be subject to 20% tax and 25.5% social security contributions for pension and disability. This is paid in addition to the tax for independent activities and social security contributions for independent activities.

    Law on commercial agents

    There is no separate law on commercial agents in Serbia. However, similar concept of “commercial representation” exists in local law on contracts and torts, which is not often used in practice but may be confused for franchising arrangement due to unclear concept of the latter. Commercial representation contract is a type of contract by which the commercial agent undertakes to find third parties who would conclude a contract with their principal. Commercial agent may also be authorized to conclude a contract on behalf of their principal, provided that the principal undertakes to pay them a certain fee for each concluded contract. In one resolution of the Commercial Appellation Court from 2014, the court stated that if a contract that is named as “commercial representation contract” does not contain provision on mandatory commission but contains work instructions, information on training for presentation and sales, it should be considered as a complex contract such as franchising contract. Current court practice is not sufficiently developed in order to assess the relation between commercial representations as regulated concept and franchising as unregulated concept.

    IP Law

    Franchisors need to protect their IP against third parties´ attacks or imitations, especially by registering their trademarks—either as International Registration (“IR”) with the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) or as national trademark in Serbia only with the Serbian Intellectual Property Office (“SIPO”). It is recommended to also carry out research beforehand in order to prevent the potential later loss of the trademark and corresponding claims for disclosure and damages.

    Real Estate/Tenancy Law

    Depending on the specific design of the franchise arrangement, legal implications may arise from real estate and tenancy law. In a structure where the franchisor (sub-) leases the locations to the franchisees, harmonizing the termination rights of the (sub-) leasing and the franchise is of essence.

    SELECTED QUESTIONS/ASPECTS

    Precontractual disclosure

    Prior to signing a franchise agreement, franchisors and in a sub-franchising structure, master franchisees should inform each potential franchisee accurately and with reasonable advance about all circumstances recognizably relevant for the conclusion of the franchise agreement.

    However, since the franchising relations are not recognized as a separate and independent legal institute in Serbia, there are no specific precontractual disclosure rules that would target franchising in particular. General rules regarding negotiations to conclude a contract, business secret, personal data and other applicable institutes need to be taken into consideration.

    Legal restrictions

    Antitrust/Competition Law Franchise agreements may contain restrictions that collide with local Competition Law and accompanying bylaws. Exemptions from the prohibition are possible under the local Vertical Block Exemption Rule (“V-BER”), provided that the respective parties to a franchise agreement do not have a market share of more than 25% each. The V-BER contains black clauses (“core restrictions”), rendering the entire agreement null and void, as well as grey clauses, rendering solely the specific provision in an agreement null and void. As a rule prescribed in the V-BER, exemption is possible for the franchising agreements. However, special attention should be paid to the black and grey clauses.

    Franchise fees

    Since there are no separate laws regulating franchising fees, general rules would apply. Among others, there is a statutory prescribed payment deadline of 60 calendar days that cannot be contractually changed in a way to be longer than 60 days between franchisor and franchisee. In addition, special note should be paid to the foreign exchange rules in Serbia since official currency in Serbia is Serbian Dinar (RSD) if the franchisor is a foreign entity.

    Confidentiality

    Confidentiality clauses in franchise agreements (often in combination with a contractual penalty) are enforceable as in other agreements i.e., there are no special rules for franchising agreements. The franchisor may file an interim injunction against an infringing franchisee, claim damages occurred due to the breach, and possibly terminate the franchise agreement extraordinarily.

    Amendments

    According to general rules from the law on contracts and torts, if the (franchise) agreement contains a precise and reasonable change reservation clause, considering the franchisees interests, unilateral amendments of the agreed terms by the franchisor may be admissible as an expression of the franchisor’s obligation to continuously develop its franchise system according to changing market conditions. Without a respective provision, amendments of the franchise agreement may only be agreed unanimously between franchisor and franchisee.Termination

    Franchise agreements are usually entered into for a certain time and terminate with lapse of that time. A regular termination by one of the parties before that is not admissible, unless both parties unanimously agree upon the same. However, franchise agreements may be terminated by each party without notice if it is unreasonable for the terminating party to continue the contractual relationship until the agreed time of termination (good cause). If the cause for termination is a breach of a contractual obligation by the other party, e.g., non-payment of franchise fees, the termination is only admissible after having issued a warning to the franchisee to remedy the breach. Unjustified terminations by a franchisor might entitle the franchisee to claim damages. Neither party to the franchising agreement cannot terminate it because of the breach/non fulfilment of a small portion of the contractual obligation. In one old (second instance) commercial court decision, the court assessed that the franchise agreement was (dully) terminated, because the conditions for termination were met, since the franchisee did not perform the contract in the agreed manner. In this particular case, the “economic interest” was not satisfying as defined in the franchise agreement.

    Renewal and transfer

    Franchisors are free to decide whether or not to renew a franchise agreement. If they do so, renewals should be done explicitly and in writing. It is admissible to contractually restrict a franchisee´s ability to transfer its franchise, typically by requiring an explicit prior written approval of the franchisor.

    DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND APPLICABLE LAW

    Serbia has 1) basic court system for general disputes (basic court in first instance, high courts for high value cases, special subject cases and second instance in some cases, appellation court as second instance and supreme court as the highest court in the country), 2) commercial court system for disputes between commercial entities (commercial court as first instance, commercial appellation court as second instance and supreme court as the highest court in the country) and administrative court system for proceedings with the public entities such as ministries, agencies and similar public institutions depending on the specific subject matter (administrative proceeding with a specific administrative body as first instance, special body or ministry for the subject matter as second instance, administrative court and supreme court). In principle, it is admissible for the parties to a franchise agreement to agree on a choice of law to be applicable on their contractual relationship. In commercial relations i.e., excluding consumers, the parties may agree on the specific venue. It is also admissible to agree on arbitration as the exclusive way of resolving disputes between the parties, thus waiving the due process of law. This may be favourable, as the parties may choose the language of the proceedings and have influence on the arbitrators selected. Also, arbitration proceedings are, unlike proceedings before ordinary courts, not held in public. However, if the value in dispute is rather low, arbitration may often be too cost-intensive.

    COVID-19

    The COVID-19 pandemic has been having a huge impact especially on some sectors such as tourism and catering, including franchising in those sectors due to the government measures, especially shutting down public life to contain the pandemic. Some of the measures provided by the government aimed at mitigating the situation in the affected sectors did help but only up to a limited extent.

    By Stefan Antonic and Igor Dencic, Independent Attorneys at Law, practicing in cooperation with Deloitte Legal 

  • AP Legal Advises UniCredit Bank Srbija on Financing Acquisition of ZGOP Novi Sad

    AP Legal has advised UniCredit Bank Srbija on the financing of EAT ZGOP’s acquisition of ZGOP a.d. Novi Sad from Integra Construction Kazahstan.

    EAT ZGOP is a subsidiary of Extra Auto Transport, a Serbian civil engineering and logistics company engaged in large infrastructural projects in Serbia and the region.

    ZGOP a.d. Novi Sad is a regional construction, repair, and railway lines company established in 1957.

    AP Legal’s team included Partners Aleksandra Jovic and Aleksandar Preradovic and Senior Associates Jovan Cirkovic and Dusan Preradovic.

  • CMS Advises German Online Bank N26

    CMS has advised German online bank N26 on the acquisition of an unidentified Serbian fintech company.

    According to CMS, “26 has already welcomed more than 7 million customers in 25 markets [in] only 6 years, and has just raised a USD 900 million Series E round at a USD 9 billion valuation of the company. In addition to Central Europe operations, they are now eyeing opportunities in East Europe, and opening an office in Serbia is an important step in their plan.”

    CMS’s team in Belgrade included Managing Partner Radivoje Petrikic, Local Partners Marija Tesic and Maja Stepanovic, and Senior Tax Lawyer Ivana Blagojevic.

  • AP Legal Advises UniCredit Bank Srbija on Financing for Marera Properties

    AP Legal has advised UniCredit Bank Srbija on a facilities agreement with Serbian real estate company Marera Properties. Isailovic & Partners reportedly advised Marera Properties on the deal.

    According to AP Legal, “the proceeds of the loan will be used for refinancing of existing indebtedness of the borrower and financing of the construction of the second phase of Retail Park Zemun.”

    AP Legal’s team included Partners Aleksandra Jovic and Aleksandar Preradovic and Senior Associates Jovan Cirkovic and Dusan Preradovic.

  • AP Legal and Kinstellar Advise on Banka Postanska Stedionica’s Acquisition of Komercijalna Banka Banja Luka

    AP Legal has advised Banka Postanska Stedionica a.d. Beograd on the acquisition of 100% share capital of Komercijalna Banka a.d. Banja Luka from Komercijalna Banka a.d. Beograd, a member of NLB Group. Kinstellar and Sajic advised the sellers on the deal.

    The closing of the transaction, which is subject to customary regulatory and competition clearances, is expected by March 31, 2022. 

    Earlier this year, Sajic and Kinstellar have advised NLB Bank on the takeover of Komercijalna Banka Beograd (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on January 21, 2021).

    AP Legal’s team was led by Partner Aleksandar Preradovic with the support of Senior Associates Jovan Cirkovic and Dusan Preradovic and Consultant Maja Stojiljkovic.

    Kinstellar’s team was led by Special Counsel Denise Hamer and Managing Partner Branislav Maric and included Managing Associate Nikola Stojiljkovic and Associate Jelena Tripkovic.

  • Karanovic & Partners Advises Big Shopping Centers on Tel Aviv Stock Exchange Transaction

    Karanovic & Partners, alongside Dentons and Weksler Bregman, has advised Big Shopping Centers on raising approximately EUR 55 million through issuing secured bonds on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange by refinancing the Big Fashion Kragujevac, Big Krusevac, and Big Fashion Outlet Indjija shopping centers in Serbia.

    Big Shopping Centers is the controlling shareholder of Big CEE. The Big CEE Group is an investor in retail real estate and has a portfolio of nine shopping centers in Serbia and four additional residential, office, and logistics projects. According to Karanovic & Partners, “Big Group intends to use the proceeds from this bond issue to further advance its expansion in Serbia and the Balkan region.”

    Karanovic & Partners’ team included Senior Partner Milos Vuckovic, Partners Katarina Guduric and Maja Jovancevic Setka, and Associate Dimitrije Ilic.

  • JPM Successful for Worldfin in Privatization Case

    Jankovic Popovic Mitic has successfully represented Worldfin before the Court of Appeal in Belgrade in a corruption charges case related to the privatization of Luka Beograd.

    According to JPM, “Worldfin was charged for acquiring unlawful financial gain by colluding with the officials from the Ministry of Privatization and Privatization Agency, as well as with the top management of Luka Beograd JSC during the successful takeover bid by which Worldfin become the majority shareholder of this company.” All of the defendants, including the (at the time) minister for Privatization and Directors of the Privatization Agency, the Share Fund, and Luka Beograd JSC, have been acquitted.

    According to the firm, the proceedings lasted for nearly ten years before “the Court of Appeal in Belgrade has finally confirmed the second first instance acquittal ruling of the Higher Court in Belgrade – Organized Crime Department.”

    JPM’s team was led by Senior Partner Nenad Popovic.