Category: Serbia

Zivkovic Samardzic has advised technology employer review platform Joberty on a USD 350,000 early-stage investment from Kroog Ventures. Isailovic & Partners advised Kroog Ventures on the deal.

Kroog Ventures is an investment platform focused on European technology startup projects.

Zivkovic Samardzic describes Joberty as an online IT business platform that connects employers and candidates in a transparent ecosystem. “With the investment of USD 350,000, this high-potential project has reached a value of as much as USD 3.3 million. The initial capital will be used to expand the Joberty platform in the region, the European market, and beyond. Since its inception, the platform has numbered over 27,000 IT professionals and 600 companies.”

The Zivkovic Samardzic team was led by Partner Igor Zivkovski.

Isailovic & Partners’ team included Senior Partner Nikola Rodic and Attorney Radomir Bogadnovic.

Harrisons has advised the EBRD on a RSD 2.9 billion (EUR 24.7 million) credit line to Eurobank Serbia for financing small and mid-size Serbian enterprises and investments in working capital as well as permanent assets.

According to Harrisons, “this credit line will expand lending to private businesses through working-capital lines and investment loans to SMEs, including those operating in economically less-developed regions of the country. It will also strengthen access to local currency loans for SMEs in Serbia, as over 60% of loans in Serbia [are currently] euro loans.”

Harrisons’ team included Consultant Ines Matijevic-Papulin and Associate Mina Markovic.

The Government of the Republic of Serbia passed the Decision on the level of minimum labour wage for the period January – December 2022 and it was published in the Official Gazette of RS no. 87/2021 of 10 September 2021, while it shall apply from 1 January 2022 (“the Decision”).

Please note that, according to Article 112, paragraph 6 of the Labour Law, minimum labour price is established by working hour excluding taxes and benefits (net amount), for a calendar year, no later than 15 September of the current year and it is applied from 1 January the following year.

Net amount of minimum wage in 2022

The Decision stipulates that the minimum labour price, without taxes and benefits for mandatory social insurance, for the period January – December 2022 shall be RSD 201.22 (“net”) per working hour.
All minimum wages paid until 31 December 2021, inclusive, shall be subject to the minimum labour price established for 2021 in the amount of RSD 183.93 net per working hour, while the payments executed from 1 January 2022 onwards shall be subject to minimum labour price in the amount of RSD 201.22 net per working hour.

Therefore, the average minimum net wage of an employee in 2022, as established for the average monthly fund of 174 working hours, shall be RSD 35,012.28, compared to RSD 32,003.82 in 2021, wherefore the minimum wage for 2022 was increased by 9.4%.

Gross amount of minimum wage in 2022

Considering that the gross amount of minimum wage depends on the untaxable amount of wage as regulated by Article 15a of the Law on Citizens’ Income Tax, the rates for calculation of income taxes and rates for calculation of mandatory social insurance paid by the employees, and the announced change of current parameters in the upcoming year (announced increase of untaxable amount to RSD 19,300 in 2022 compared to the current amount of RSD 18,300), it is not possible to give an overview for the gross amount of minimum wage for the upcoming year.

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 Natalija Djukic, Associate, PR Legal

Ognjen Colic has been promoted to Partner at Gecic Law.

Colic, who has been with Gecic Law for five years, has been heading the Corporate/M&A, Labor and Energy, Infrastructure & PPP practices.

According to Gecic Law, Colic’s practice “focused on corporate/M&A and has included pioneering work on some of the most notable projects in the energy, mining, retail, food, ICT and advertising industries in the region.”

Five years ago, Colic joined Gecic Law (as previously reported by CEE Legal Matter on October 28, 2016). Prior to that, he spent three years with Karanovic & Partners and a further three years with BDK Advokati before setting up his own firm which he ran for another three years.

“I am honored to make partner in the fastest-growing law firm in the region,” Colic commented. “It is every lawyer’s dream to reach this coveted position and I look forward to working together with my colleagues to further strengthen and expand our practice.”

“I am thrilled to announce Ognjen’s election as Partner,” said Managing Partner Bogdan Gecic. “Ognjen’s commitment to our common values and culture has indeed been extraordinary, while industry-leading legal work and impeccable client service are an integral part of his professional credo.”

Former Senior Associate Aleksandar Popovic has been promoted to Partner with JPM Jankovic Popovic Mitic and will head the firm’s newly established Creative Industries practice area.

According to the firm, Popovic “has a successful track record with particular focus on brand protection and infringement, production, and publishing rights . . . providing full legal service throughout the production cycle: development, financing, production, distribution, and marketing.” He focuses on Media and Creative Industries, IP&IT,  Dispute Resolution, Insolvency & Debt Recovery, as well as Real Estate & Construction.

According to JPM, he will lead the Creative Industries team, offering both legal and business advice “to those working with digital transactions and creative management agreements including artist, director, writer, and music-related deals,” for businesses and talent.

Karanovic & Partners has announced it entered into an agreement with Gypsy Roma Urban Balkan Beats to provide ongoing pro bono legal support on contracts, scholarships, and copyright matters.

According to Karanovic & Partners, GRUBB was founded in 2006 in the UK and runs educational and artistic programs, working predominantly in Serbia with Roma children and youth. “Thanks to GRUBB, young Roma are given the possibility to make good use of many otherwise expensive educational materials and career management services in order to develop their skills and grow artistically . . . Internationally renowned artists joined GRUBB on a voluntary basis, supporting and encouraging them. They focused their time and energy on mentoring and bringing out the very best in the young Roma participants. This mutually supportive artistic relationship and nurturing of talent brings to life many works of authorship . . . One of the most noticeable is undoubtedly the female Roma band Pretty Loud. Through their lyrics and writing, they talk about their everyday challenges and hopes as well as more complex topics such as race, representation, and social justice.”

Karanovic & Partners announced it joined GRUBB seeking to empower young Roma women and men, while stating the following about its involvement in the project: “GRUBB acquired essential databases of educational materials [used] in its work with all participants, including the performers . . . During their artistic training, the young attendees create numerous copyright-protected works. Communication to the public of these works has to be regulated. This is where Karanovic & Partners steps in – as pro bono legal support. We counsel GRUBB on contract drafting, copyright, and scholarships.”

The firm further stated: “We are proud of sharing our expertise. Therefore, we are constantly working hard on developing various projects with a common goal to educate and empower youngsters. Why GRUBB? Again, in their own words: ‘Because those who are silent must be able to sing. Because art is a homeland for those who have none. Because education is the shortest way to freedom.’ We are proud to have been given the opportunity to participate in such a critical pro bono project; it has certainly made us richer as people.”

Harrisons has advised the EBRD on two loans to Erste Bank a.d. Novi Sad – one for EUR 25 million under the Resilience Framework and one for EUR 5 million under the SME Competitiveness Support Programme.

The Resilience Framework was established by the EBRD as part of COVID-19 Solidarity Package to support EBRD’s existing client in response to the economic consequences caused by COVID-19 pandemic. 

The SME Competitiveness Support Programme has been established by the EBRD to help finance investments in micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises in the Republic of Serbia that will assist in improving the competitiveness and compliance with technical standards in line with the EU acquis communautaire.

Harrisons’ team included Lawyers Ines Matijevic-Papulin and Mina Markovic.

On 2 September 2021 Ireland’s Data Protection Commission (DPC) announced a 225 million euro fine for WhatsApp and ordered the company to amend its practices within three months. It is the largest fine ever from the DPC, and the second-highest under Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The fine preceded the instruction to WhatsApp to make updates in its already massive privacy policy and change how it notifies users about sharing their data. This will bring the company into compliance with GDPR which governs how tech companies collect and use data in the EU area.

The mentioned fine relates to the investigation which began in 2018, about whether WhatsApp had been transparent enough concerning the provision of information and the transparency of that information to users of WhatsApp’s service. This also includes information provided to data subjects about the processing of information between WhatsApp and other Facebook Inc companies.

Following a comprehensive investigation, the Irish data authority submitted a draft decision to all concerned supervisory authorities under Article 60 of GDPR, in December 2020. In this regard, on 28 July 2021, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted a binding decision and this decision was notified to the DPC in Ireland. This decision contained instructions that required the DPC to reconsider and increase its proposed fine based on several factors contained in the EDPB’s decision. In assessing how the fine to be imposed against WhatsApp should be calculated, the EDPB ordered the DPC to factor in the turnover of all the component companies falling under the umbrella of Facebook Inc, WhatsApp’s parent company. It also clarified that the total turnover of a company is a factor that can be considered for ensuring the actual level of penalty decided upon is “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”, as the regulation requires, and is not just relevant for determining what the maximum possible penalty that can be imposed under the GDPR is. Following the decision of EDPB, the DPC found that WhatsApp failed to disclose information under its GDPR transparency obligations and imposed a fine of 225 million euros.

In a statement by which WhatsApp representative responded to the DPC’s decision, WhatsApp denied all stated in a decision and also announced that the company will appeal the decision.

The mentioned decision that arose from the Ireland Data Protection authority shows how great consequences could be in case of GDPR infringement, and sends a strong message to all companies stated in the EU area to comply with its rules.

This text is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Should you require any additional information, feel free to contact us.

By Katarina Zivkovic, Senior Associate, and Miroslav Ravic, Trainee, Samardzic, Oreski & Grbovic

COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly brought significant changes not only to the everyday life of citizens but also to the operations of business entities, i.e. to the way of establishing and conducting the work process.

One of the current issues, i.e. a question which is lately often asked, is the permissibility and justification of so-called COVID passes, especially in the context of their introducing as a condition for employees to access their workplaces. Namely, on the one hand, the employer’s interest is to ensure the stable running of the work process, while also having the liability to organize it in a way that provides safety and protection of life and health at work, whereby, on the other hand, the employee’s interest is not only protection of its health at work, but also protection of its personal data, and especially the prevention of discrimination based on its health condition.

At a very first glance, it is clear how complex the topic of conditioning the accession of employees to the work by undertaking an inspection of the certificate on vaccination against COVID-19, recovery from illness or negative test result is, i.e. from how many different angles (both legal and those of ethical and practical nature) it is necessary to consider it in order to give a certain judgment thereof.

In this text, we will try to make a brief look at the aforesaid issue from the aspect of regulations of the Republic of Serbia governing personal data protection.

What Does the Act on Personal Data Protection say?

We believe that – even to a legal layman – it is apparent that data on immunization, recovery from illness, or test results on COVID-19 represent personal data in sense of the Act on Personal Data Protection (Official Gazette of RS, no. 87/2018) (the “APDP”). Also, making insight into this type of data represents the processing of personal data in terms of this regulation. In addition to the above, it is important to note that data on health status (physical or mental health and provision of health services) represent a special type of personal data, subject to very restrictive processing rules. In other words, it is necessary to meet, i.e. acquire multitude conditions in order for it to be lawful.

Thus, the APDP stipulates that personal data must be collected for purposes that are specifically determined, explicit, justified, and lawful and that it cannot be processed in a manner that is not in accordance with those purposes, as well as that processing is lawful (among other cases) only if it is necessary in order to pursue the legitimate interests of the controller (or a third party) unless those interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject requiring the protection of personal data (especially if the data subject is a minor). The APDP also sets out the so-called principle of minimization of personal data, meaning that data must be appropriate, relevant, and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purpose of processing. In addition to the above, the APDP explicitly provides for cases in which the processing of individuals’ health data is allowed.

What Can We Conclude from the Above?

It is clear, therefore, that the answer to the question of whether – from the APDP and other domestic regulations with regards to the personal data protection point of view – employers can condition employees to come to work by inspecting their certificate on vaccination against COVID-19, recovery from illness or negative test result, cannot be uniform, but depends on numerous circumstances of the specific case, such as the nature of the employer’s business activity, a number of active COVID-19 cases in the relevant area, measures prescribed by the competent authorities which are in force in a particular moment, etc.

Additionally, we emphasize that except for the position that processing of data on the health status of employees can be done only in accordance with the acts of competent authorities related to the pandemic and with full respect for the principles of data processing pursuant to the APDP, at the moment there is no relevant practice of domestic competent authorities thereof.

What Can We Do?

Having in mind all the above, it remains to be seen whether – given the frequency and importance of this issue – the appropriate guidelines of competent authorities will be enacted in the coming period, as well as what specific solutions will arise out of the practice of business entities in these unquestionably specific circumstances.

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

With an interesting legislative pipeline and a full deck of elections announced for next April, Serbia finds itself in a place of opportunity right now, according to PR Legal Partner Milan Petrovic.

“The biggest buzz right now are the changes to the constitution, which began in 2016 in slow motion, but are galloping recently,” Petrovic begins. According to him, the constitutional changes are nothing new, but rather the result of a several-year-long process that got sped up only recently. “Chapter 23 of the accession process to the European Union – Judiciary and fundamental rights – is the key driver here,” he says. “Serbia has been struggling a fair bit with this chapter in the past, especially when it comes to undue pressure – the least of which is political – on judges and prosecutors.”

Petrovic says that for these reasons, and in cooperation with the Venice Commission, the Serbian government has decided to undertake a full stack of reforms. “These primarily include the way judges and prosecutors are chosen, with a newly proposed mechanism having them elected by the High Judicial Council and the State Prosecutorial Council, respectively,” he says. On paper, it looks like a good approach but one concern for legal experts is whether half of the members of those Councils will still be appointed by Parliament, out of a pool of “prominent lawyers”. Other key amendments will tackle the Parliament’s jurisdiction and decision-making process.

“Only time will tell how successful these reforms will be,” Petrovic says. “The constitutional amendments themselves will not be enough to guarantee the independent work of judges and prosecutors.” He reports that the justice system itself is under far more duress than just the way judges and prosecutors are elected, with some 1.5 million unresolved court cases. “The amendments do not address the pressure for judges to settle cases quickly, which means that that specific pressure will not decrease as a consequence.”

Politically, however, Petrovic feels like little is likely to change – even with the country facing Presidential, Parliamentary, and local Belgrade elections, all in April of next year. “Other than the usual pre-election behavior of attempting to attract more investors and unveiling some projects around the country, I don’t think that we ought to expect anything major happening,” he says.

“When it comes to business too, things are quiet,” Petrovic continues. “Seeing as how Serbia has left the era of privatization, the majority of investors now focus on startups, greenfield, and brownfield investments.” He considers Serbia to be an interesting target for investment, given its geographical position and, especially, its “low operational costs, in terms of the price of labor and payroll tax incentives, custom free access to different world markets, and numerous free-trade agreements, including the one with Russian Federation.”

Finally, talking about the most active business sectors, Petrovic highlights the IT and food sectors. “These are the largest areas of opportunity for Serbia to showcase its full potential, without a doubt,” Petrovic concludes.