Category: Serbia

On 24 May 2021, the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia adopted the amendments to the Law on Planning and Construction (“Official Gazette of the RS”, No. 52/2021), which entered into force on 25 May 2021.

The most significant change is the extension of the deadline for obtaining a use permit for facilities for which the construction permit has been issued, i.e. the decision on construction approval under the previous laws on the construction of facilities that were in force until 11 September 2009.

The new deadline for obtaining a use permit for mentioned facilities is 25 May 2025. Therefore, the deadline for issuing a use permit has been extended for 4 years.

In addition, the amendments to the law define a new deadline for the competent public authorities, i.e. local self-government units for adopting the new planning documents, that will replace the planning documents adopted before 1 January 1993. The competent public authorities, that did not adopt new planning documents, are obliged to do so within 24 months from the day the amendments to the law come into force.

The purpose that the legislator wants to achieve by adopting these amendments is to reduce the number of facilities for which a building permit has been issued, but a use permit hasn’t. Additionally, by obliging public authorities to adopt new planning documents, Legislator wants to create a platform for a greater urban and construction development of locations that are not regulated by the existing urban plan.

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 Milos Gledovic, Partner, and Miroslav Ravic, Trainee, Samardzic, Oreski & Grbovic

The standard approach in cases involving abuse of dominant position implies that the competition authority determines the market influence of the company due to which it can operate in the relevant market to a significant extent independently of other market participants and, provided that the company has a dominant position, whether its actions result in abuse of such position. The standard approach came naturally in markets that are geographically and economically limited. The core of the principle is that the public authority reacts ex-post (after the event) to abuses, by imposing the obligation to terminate anticompetitive practices or imposing penalties for prohibited behaviour.

However, the standard approach seems unfit to tackle the current market impact of multinational tech companies as Amazon, Google, Apple, and similar. The reaction came as a proposal of a new set of competition regulations across the EU.

Amendments to the German Competition Law

In 2021 came the amendments to the German Act against Restraints of Competition which, amongst others, target operation of digital platforms that affect multiple markets and spillover a number of jurisdictions.

The main novelties introduced by the amendments are:

• qualification of company’s market position as paramount cross-market significance;
• the public authority may act ex-ante (prior to an event, instead of ex-post as standard approach);
• conduct that could be prohibited as abusive by a company whose market position is qualified as of paramount cross-market significance is specified in an exhaustive list;
• the relevant market is not determined as an admixture of relevant product and geographic market but could consist of several markets determined on the basis of undertaking’s market position.

The status of the company with paramount cross-market significance is to be reviewed every five years by Federal Cartel Office (“FCO”).

Until now, FCO initiated two proceedings for determining companies’ paramount significance for competition across markets, the second being initiated on May 18, 2021, against Amazon in relation to its online markets and particular digital offers.

Proposals of the European Commission

Similar to the German legislator, the European Commission published a Proposal for the Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on Contestable and Fair Markets in The Digital Sector (“Digital Markets Act”). Proposal tackle market conduct of so-called gatekeepers, i.e., undertakings having a significant impact on the internal market (a); operating as a core platform service or rather an intermediary between business users and end-users (b); whose position on the market is surefooted or there is sufficient certainty in this respect. The Digital Markets Act aims to stipulate complementary obligations to Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and national competition rules for undertakings qualified as gatekeepers.

Until the legislators worldwide manage to find the optimal approach regarding anti-competitive practices of large tech companies, the public authorities have the task of interpreting existing rules in accordance with changes in market structure on a global level. This would be particularly challenging when it comes to the analysis of possible abuse of dominant position by high-level tech multinationals, whose operations in practice could be hardly restrained by existing regulations.

Abuse of Dominant Market Position – Google vs JuicePass

In a similar vein, the Italian Competition and Market Authority (“AGCM”) fined Google over EUR 102 millionfor abuse of its dominant position. AGCM initiated proceedings against Google on the basis of a complaint submitted by Enel X Italia after Google declined to allow publication of the JuicePass app providing service related to EV charging and navigation regarding charging stations. The application was available on the Google app store from 2018, which implies that it should have been automatically available on Android Auto, the part of the same appsystem.

AGCM analyzed Google’s conduct through the prism of functions of JuicePass and Google Maps and found that there is “an area of ​​overlap” between the navigation apps and the EV charging app services regarding the search and navigation functions. In addition, navigation apps could extend their functions to search for EG charging station services. As a result, although the apps in question are different types of apps, they are competitors from the perspective of services offered to end-users. The only difference is that Google Maps offers navigation services that are wider in nature, while the JuicePass offers specific navigation services, together with booking, managing, and paying for recharging.

The fact that Android is a platform that interconnects manufacturers of smart mobile devices, app developers, and owners/users of smart mobile devices generates a great incentive for app developers to adapt their apps to Android requirements, while this further induces interest of end-users and in turn amplifies incentives for developers to access the platform with such user base. AGCM reasoning concerned the effects of Google’s refusal to include JuicePass on Android Auto on the future operation of Enel X. These effects imply that in the period for which JuicePass was not available on Android Auto, Google had the ability to build a user base at the expense of user base of JuicePass app. In that way, the refusal should be understood not as a barrier imposed to Enel X to enter the market but rather as squeezing out a competitor from the market since it was deprived of access to the user base. Therefore, platforms offering various tech services become liable for both preventing the (possible) competitors to enter the market and impeding them access to the existing platform’s user base.

In a more and more centralized digital economy, the new approach should not be taken as a revolutionary novelty, especially given the words of the chairman of the FCO while explaining the new procedure for assessing anti-competitive behaviour, stating that paramount significance for competition across markets particularly implies an ecosystem which extends across various markets constituting an almost unchallengeable position of economic power. Since the almost unchallengeable position of economic power in a self-sufficient ecosystem provides the basis for undertaking to tailor the market according to its own standards, ex-post reaction to anticompetitive behaviour becomes futile. 

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 Milan Novakov, Senior Associate, and Aleksandra Cvorovic, Trainee, Samardzic, Oreski & Grbovic

The Law on the Protection of Business Secret (Official Gazette of RS, no. 53/2021, “LPBS“) entered into force on 5 June 2021 and it completely repealed the previous law that regulated this matter.

The new law introduces the definitions of various terms, namely business secret, holder of business secret, a person who violated business secret, persons suspected of violating of business secret, and it also establishes the reasonable measures for preservation of the secrecy of information that represents business secret.

In accordance with the new law, the information fulfilling the following requirements shall be considered as business secret:

• they represent business secret because their entirety or the structure and composition of their elements are not generally known or easily accessible to persons who usually encounter such information within their activities (including, among other, knowledge and skills, business information an technological information),
• they have commercial value because they represent secret,
• the person controlling them under the law undertook reasonable measures in the given circumstances in order to protect their secrecy.

Therefore, in order for information to be considered as business secret in the terms of this law, it needs to contain the following elements: secrecy, commercial value, that reasonable measures have been undertaken for preservation of its secrecy.

The LPBS also enlists the cases of lawful and unlawful provision, use, and disclosure of business secret.

Civil law protection – filing a lawsuit

The right to file a lawsuit for violation of business secret was envisaged by the previous law as well. However, the rules prescribed by the LPBS with regard to this issue are somewhat different now.

Namely, the LPBS prescribes that, in case of violation of business secret, a lawsuit may request:

• the establishment of the breach;
• termination of the breach or, depending on the case, prohibition to use or disclose business secret;
• prohibition to manufacture, offer, trade, or use the goods that caused the breach, and/or prohibition to import, export or store the goods that caused breach for the purposes of manufacturing, offering, trading, or using the goods;
• designation of appropriate measures that refer to the goods that caused the breach, which include the withdrawal of such goods from the market, elimination of properties from the goods that made them the goods that caused the breach of business secret or destruction of goods that caused the breach, and, if justified, its withdrawal from the market, given that the withdrawal does not jeopardise the business secret that the lawsuit refers to;
• total or partial destruction of documents, objects, materials, substances, or electronic documents containing a business secret or representing a business secret and, if applicable, submission of such documents, objects, materials, substances, or electronic documents, in total or in part, to the plaintiff.

A holder of business secret may file a lawsuit against a person whose unauthorised undertaking of an activity represents imminent threat from unlawful provision, use or disclosure of business secret and request the termination of such activity and prohibition of unlawful provision, use or disclosure of business secret.

The stated lawsuit may also be filed against a mediator providing services used by a third person in the activities of unlawful provision, use or disclosure of business secret and/or whose undertaking represents imminent threat of unlawful provision, use or disclosure of business secret.

It is additionally prescribed that, if a plaintiff requires that goods used for breach be withdrawn from the market, it may also request that the goods be handed over to the holder of business secret or to charity organisations.

As persons with active legitimation for filing a lawsuit for protection of business secret are determined holder of business secret, as well as licence holder, if authorised under the agreement or law.

Deadlines for filing a lawsuit for breach of business secret have been extended. It is now envisaged that a lawsuit may be filed within one year after the day the plaintiff learned about the breach and the person suspected of violating business secret, and no later than five years following the day of breach occurrence or the day of last breach occurrence if the breach is done continuously. Under the previous law, subjective deadline for filing a lawsuit was six months and objective was three years.

Under the LPBS, a holder of business secret/licence holder shall also be entitled to damage compensation for the business secret breach, while damage compensation can now be claimed under general rules on damage compensation. Namely, in addition to material, the LPBS explicitly prescribes that non-material damage can now be subject to compensation.

The pronouncing of temporary measures, collection and provision of evidence, obligation to provide information, rules on submission and preservation of secrecy relating to court procedure are regulated in detail.

Regarding the rights of foreign persons, it is stipulated that foreign natural person and legal entity shall enjoy equal rights with domestic natural persons and legal entities with regard to business secret protection, if it arises from international agreements applied in the Republic of Serbia, or reciprocity principle, while the existence of reciprocity shall be proved by the person referring to the reciprocity.

Appropriate application of other laws

The issues pertaining to the procedure upon lawsuit for breach of business secret, proposal to pronounce temporary measure and proposal for evidence collection, which is not specifically regulated by this law, shall be subject to relevant provisions of the law regulating litigation procedure and the law on enforcement and security, while the issues relating to damage compensation that are not specifically regulated by this law shall be accordingly subject to the provisions of the law on contracts and torts.

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 Jovana Milic, Senior Associate, PR Legal

Zivkovic Samardzic has advised on the merger of Eurobank a.d. Beograd with Direktna Banka a.d. Kragujevac, via an absorption of Direktna by Eurobank Serbia. GO2Law advised Direktna on English law matters, with Milbank advising both banks on English law. Schoenherr reportedly advised Eurobank Serbia on the deal as well.

Eurobank Beograd is the Serbian subsidiary of Eurobank S.A., itself a subsidiary of Eurobank Ergasias Services and Holdings S.A. The transaction remains contingent on regulatory approval.

The Eurobank Group is a banking group active in six countries, with total assets of EUR 67.7 billion and 11,394 employees. According to Zivkovic Samardzic, “established in 1990, the Group expanded through organic growth to become a leading force in Greek banking sector. In Serbia, Eurobank (after two successful acquisitions – Postanska Banka and Nacionalna Stedionica) is today among the leading foreign investors and financial institutions.” According to the firm, “Direktna is a modern, domestic and universal bank, whose business strategy is focused on business with the population and the economy. It was created by the purchase of KBM Bank, then Findomestic BNP Paribas and Piraeus Bank a.d. Beograd, which formed a strong and stable financial institution.”

The combined bank – Eurobank Direktna – will have total assets in excess of EUR 2 billion and total equity above EUR 300 million. The combined bank’s market share will exceed 6.5%, in terms of total loans, making the bank the seventh-largest in Serbia.

After the completion of the transaction, Eurobank will control approximately 70% of the combined bank while Direktna’s shareholders will own the remaining 30%. According to Zivkovic Samardzic, “both parties have committed to a growth-oriented business plan, incorporating ambitious expansion targets that will allow the combined bank to finance the Serbian economy and grow profitably in the next few years. Part of the transaction is the payment of a dividend/capital return to Eurobank. The transaction is capital neutral for Eurobank and earnings per share accretive by 3% post synergies.”

Zivkovic Samardzic’s team included Partners Branislav Zivkovic, Uros Djordjevic, Igor Zivkovski, and Sava Pavlovic.

GO2Law’s team was led by Hugh Owen.

The National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia adopted the Law on Amendments to the Law on Electronic Document, Electronic Identification and Trust Services in Electronic Business (hereinafter “Amendments to the Law”), on May 20, 2021.

The Law on Electronic Document, Electronic Identification and Trust Services in Electronic Business (hereinafter “the Law”) was passed in 2017, and in that time it replaced fairly outdated Law on Electronic Signature and the Law on Electronic Document.

Law must keep pace with society, and society today is geared mainly towards digital communication. All benefits of technological progress are used by the economy, therefore modern business, where time and saving of time are of the utmost value, is now geared more than ever towards modern communication forms.

It is the Law that regulates electronic business and its solutions provide security and trust to natural persons and legal entities just like signed and stamped sheets of paper. More importantly, public authorities are being integrated into this system. Without their participation, especially when it comes to the economy, all the benefits and savings of electronic business would be reduced to a significantly smaller extent.

Amendments to the Law represent the first amendments to the Law since its entry into force 4 years ago. During this period, natural persons, and especially legal entities, had many opportunities to come into contact with the provisions of the Law, mostly thanks to public authorities, where some actions are only possible (a failure to take such actions would be criminally sanctioned), through an electronic document, provided with a qualified electronic signature.

The shortcomings of the Law in practice, which are sought to be eliminated by the Amendments to the Law, primarily concerned the position of foreign persons. The manner of issuing qualified electronic certificates is a strictly regulated procedure, to the extent that the personal, physical presence of the person who requests its issuance, was set by Law as an absolute requirement.

The Covid-19 epidemic has significantly changed the world society, and movement restrictions, especially the interstate ones, have affected the economy as well. In such conditions, where the economy has already found solutions from the emerging crisis in digital technologies, the personal, physical presence of foreign legal representatives for the purpose of obtaining certificates without which it was impossible to proceed, was not possible nor justified

In that sense, Amendments to the Law offer new solutions, therefore, the Law adapts to society and its new circumstances. It was enabled to create a qualified electronic signature remotely, which will not require the physical presence of someone who requests this type of service, but it will still guarantee that the data for creating an electronic signature is used under the exclusive control of the signatory.

In addition to the above, a significant change of the Law is also based on international cooperation in the field of electronic identification. Regarding electronic signatures, the Law earlier only recognized the validity of those issued by the authorized certification bodies of the Republic of Serbia, while the implementation of those issued abroad required regulation through international agreements. 

Amendments to the Law have established the possibility to legally use in Serbia electronic signatures of other countries, by establishing a clear mechanism that will enable cross-border authentication of persons. All of the above is primarily regulated taking into account the European Union and the electronic identification scheme published by the European Commission, in accordance with the eIDAS Regulation. The mentioned EU list will be automatically included in our Register of qualified means for creating electronic signatures and seals, which clearly shows that priority aim is facilitating electronic business.

The Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Telecommunications shall cooperate with competent international bodies regarding issues of cross-border interoperability of electronic identification schemes. In such a manner, it will be enabled to connect the electronic identification issued in a foreign country with the one from the Republic of Serbia.

The harmonization of bylaws which will enable implementation of all changes in the practice, shall be done within 6 months from the date when Amendments to the Law enter into force.

Amendments to the Law further integrate and direct public authorities to the use of qualified electronic certificates and time stamps, in such a way that public authorities must now enable its use in their software solutions. In addition, any document of the public authority in the form of an electronic document must contain only a qualified electronic signature of an authorized person (a qualified electronic stamp is now placed as an alternative).

With further details regarding submission of the electronic documents, the conclusion is, that Amendments to the Law gravitate towards the improvement of the Law (bearing in mind the necessities and shortcomings in its practical implementation), and thus raising legal certainty in electronic business and creating preconditions for further economic growth.

By Nemanja Aleksic, Managing Partner, Aleksic & Associates

NKO Partners has advised CTP on the acquisition of land from the City of Novi Sad.

Financial details were not disclosed.

According to NKO, the plot is earmarked “for development on behalf of the Nidec Corporation, a Japan-based company operating in the global brushless DC motor market.” According to the firm, the project is considered “of national interest to the Republic of Serbia by the Serbian Government.”

NKO Partners’ team was led by Partner Djordje Nikolic.

Former Senior Associates Ivan Ljubisavljevic and Sava Pavlovic have been promoted to Partner at Zivkovic Samardzic, as of July 1, 2021.

According to Zivkovic Samardzic, Ljubisavljevic, part of the Dispute Resolution Department, is “specialized in dispute resolution and regulatory compliance with an emphasis on the financial services sector. In this newly created role, Ivan will be responsible for the implementation of projects and cases of strategic importance for the firm from the area of civil litigation, banking, and finance litigation in particular.” Ljubisavljevic graduated from the University of Belgrade, Faculty of Law. Before joining Zivkovic Samardzic, he spent four years with La Fantana and a year and a half with Uniqa Osiguranje.

According to Zivkovic Samardzic, Pavlovic has, at first, been advising clients in the media, telecom, and advertising industry, and has later joined the Corporate and M&A team. He has an LL.B. and an LL.M. from the University of Belgrade, Faculty of Law. Before joining Zivkovic Samardzic, he spent a year with the Directorate for Digital Agenda, Serbia.

“Congratulations to Ivan and Sava on achieving this important milestone in their careers,” said Managing Partner Branislav Zivkovic. “It is a testament to their commitment to being our trusted advisors to our clients for their most complex and important challenges and opportunities.”

The global crisis, which arose as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, brought light, among other things, to the weaknesses of the Serbian public health care system. The daily mass collection of a person’s data on health – which, according to the Serbian Data Protection Act, is considered particularly sensitive data – became a regular occurrence during the pandemic.

This data was processed according to Serbian Government decisions and instructions – where the suppression of the pandemic represented the primary goal. Such conduct further gave way to public interest being posed above the rights of an individual, where in itself, the COVID-19 pandemic became a special test for the application of the Data Protection Act and to the work of the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection (Commissioner).

During the state of emergency, the Commissioner pointed out that, from the point of view of the application of the Data Protection Act, there are no obstacles to the processing of a person’s health data when it is based on applicable regulations, including state of emergency acts; also, the processing of the person’s health data can be performed within the limits of authorization and in compliance with all principles of processing from Article 5 of the Data Protection Act.

This allowed the Serbian Government to create the COVID-19 Information System (IS COVID-19) during mid-April 2020, as a centralized software for entering, analysing and storing data on all persons monitored to control and combat the COVID-19 pandemic.

The system contains data of all persons who were tested for COVID-19 within the prescribed epidemiological procedures and enables tracking their further status (positive, negative, hospitalized, in self-isolation, on a respirator, cured, deceased, phone numbers, addresses etc.) and a whole range of health and other personal data, as well as data on close contacts of the tested individuals, so that their epidemiological status can be monitored. Data is entered into the system by employees of public health institutions who are in charge of taking swabs and performing PCR tests (health centres, hospitals, public health institutes, laboratories). Access to this data was given to various state bodies.

A short while after it was created, the IS COVID-19 suffered a serious security incident – where the usernames and passwords to access the system were made publicly available for eight days on the website of a Belgrade municipality. That was more than enough time for such particularly sensitive data to be widely available to anybody able enough to do a simple google search.

As a result of the supervision procedure, the Commissioner only issued a warning to the system operator – here the Institute of Public Health “Dr. Milan Jovanović Batut”, due to omissions in the system management that led to violations of obligations prescribed by the Data Protection Act.

The Commissioner found that the omissions were as follows:

1. no contract was concluded with the processors, primarily the Republic Health Insurance Fund (RHIF), which is in charge of providing technical support to users;
2. appropriate system protection measures were not taken;
3. no data protection impact assessment was performed (which in this case according to the Data Protection Act was mandatory before the system was even put out).

Such conduct shows a worrisome lack of awareness of not only the persons entering such data, but also the state bodies that were initially obliged to act in entirety according to the Data Protection Act. Unfortunately, the mentioned omission from IS COVID-19 is another indicator of the attitude of the public authorities towards the privacy of citizens. During those eight days, when the system was publicly available, we cannot know who could have entered the system or if such a mass of data was possibly stolen and brokered further on.

Having in mind the above stated, it is unclear what will happen with the collected data after the COVID-19 pandemic. There is still an open issue of deleting the data collected, as the data which was collected by a various number of state bodies will remain somewhere in their systems and as such will lose its purpose, but not its value.

The public, as such, needs to be informed of the necessary procedures which will be undertaken either by their own request or by the state bodies ex officio, to delete said data. Although it is certain that some data will have to be stored and archived at some point for research and statistical purposes – we can only hope that the personal data collected will be anonymised.

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 Katarina Zivulovic, Associate, Samardzic, Oreski & Grbovic

The Law amending the Law on Excise (Official Gazette of RS, no. 53/2021) entered into force on 5 June 2021 and its novelties refer to the excise for alcoholic beverages. 

The reason for amendments of the law was harmonisation with the European Union regulations, i.e. its directives that regulate the field of spirits and excise taxation of this category of beverages.

Alcoholic beverages, in terms of this law, are being considered: 

• drinks that are, depending on the raw material they are produced from and ethanol content, traded as such type of beverages under the regulation on quality and other requirements for alcoholic beverages;
• all spirits regulated by provisions governing the field of spirits;
• low-alcohol beverages containing more than 1,2% vol of alcohol and maximum 15% vol of alcohol, that are produced from fruit juices or alcohol-free refreshments with added refined ethyl alcohol or alcoholic beverages or herb extracts or alcoholic beverages produced by fermentation (wines, apple wines – cider, pear wines – perry etc.), whereas the quality of fruit juices, refreshing alcohol-free beverages, refined ethyl alcohol, alcoholic beverages, wines and alcoholic beverages produced by fermentation must comply with the regulations on their quality;
• all types of beer, except for alcohol-free beer containing up to 0,5% alcohol, regardless of the manner of their packaging.

Excise for spirits 

Under the previous legal solution, the basis for calculation of excise for spirits was determined according to one litter as a unit of measurement and it depended on the type of spirit. It is now stipulated that excise for spirits is paid in the amount of RSD 46,250.00 for basis consisting of one hectolitre of pure alcohol measured at 20°C temperature, and it is calculated by multiplying the basis with a number indicating the volume of alcohol expressed in hectolitres in finished product.

In this manner, the amount of excise for all spirits will be equalised, regardless of the raw material used for their production. In other words, the amount of excise will not depend on whether the spirit is made of fruit (brandy) or grain (whiskey), hence the prices of these drinks are expected to be changed.

Excise for low-alcohol beverages and beer 

The provisions regulating excise for low-alcohol beverages and beer have remained the same i.e. for these alcoholic beverages excise is still calculated based on litter as measurement unit and the amount of excise does not depend on the percentage of alcohol contained in a particular drink.

Harmonisation of the amount of excise for alcoholic drinks 

The amendments of the law stipulate that the first upcoming adjustment of dinar amounts of excise for alcoholic beverages will be in 2022, with the consumer price index in 2021.

On the day of entry into force of this law, dinar amounts of excise defined by the Law on Excise adjusted with the consumer price index for 2020 ceased to be valid (“Official Gazette of RS”, no. 11/21), in the part referring to excise for alcoholic beverages, i.e. brandy made of fruit, grapes, wine and other fruit brandies with added extra herbs, parts of herbs or farming products, a brandy made of grain and other farming raw materials and other spirits.

Labelling with control excise stamps 

Alcoholic beverages, namely brandy made of fruit, grapes, wine and other fruit brandies with added herb extract, parts of herbs of farming products, a brandy made of grain and other farming raw materials and other spirits that have been traded before entry into force of this law and which were labelled with control excise stamps in accordance with the Regulation on the appearance of control excise stamp, type of information on the stamp and manner and procedure for approval and issuance of stamps, keeping records on approved and issued stamps and labelling of cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, and coffee, may be traded until the end of stock.

Also, the stated alcoholic beverages for which control excise stamps have been collected before entry into force of this law are being labelled with control excise stamps in accordance with the Regulation on the appearance of control excise stamp, type of information on the stamp and manner and procedure for approval and issuance of stamps, keeping records on approved and issued stamps and labelling of cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, and coffee.

Starting from the day of entry into force of this law, spirits which are defined in accordance with the new legal solution, are being labelled following the Regulation on the appearance of control excise stamp, type of information on the stamp and manner and procedure for approval and issuance of stamps, keeping records on approved and issued stamps and labelling of cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, and coffee, until the adoption of the regulation on their labelling.

Obligation to make stock inventory 

The amendments prescribe the obligation for producers of spirits, which are in possession of produced alcoholic beverages on the day of entry into force of this law, namely brandy made of fruit, grapes, wine and other fruit brandies with added herb extract, parts of herbs of farming products, a brandy made of grain and other farming raw materials and other spirits, to make a stock inventory as on that date for the stated products and to submit the inventory lists to the relevant tax authority within 15 days after the entry into force of this law.

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 Jovana Milic, Senior Associate, PR Legal

In the last decade, we have witnessed a significant transformation in the area of transportation services. Several new transportation service providers have entered the market, the offer has increased considerably, and accordingly, the price of the service has decreased. On every corner of the global metropolis, you can see a car of a different transportation company (Yandex, Uber, Cargo…) and customers are now able cheaper than ever move from point A to point B. Private transportation providers have higher profits than ever, and everyone seems to be pleased.

However, from the labour law perspective, the employment status of private transportation drivers still remains vague.

United Kingdom: Uber Drivers Entitled to Workers’ Rights

The UK supreme court has dismissed Uber’s appeal against a landmark employment tribunal ruling and backed the tribunals’ decision that Uber drivers should be classified as workers with access to the minimum wage and paid holidays.

Uber argued that their drivers are independent, self-employed “partners” that are not entitled to basic workers’ rights. The arguments in this respect were that they have full flexibility in their working hours, and they are their own employers.

The court concluded that the drivers were neither independent contractors nor employees, but that they have a status of workers as soon as they log on to the app until they log off. Consequently, they are entitled to more rights, which include the legally enforceable minimum hourly wage and paid holidays.

Serbia: the Unenviable Position of ‘Platform’ Workers in Serbia is Justified by Better Earnings and Flexible Hours?

In the area of private transportation and food delivery services, The Serbian capital has received several new players on the market in recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic and isolation measures have especially increased the use of food delivery applications, with an increase in the number of new users and higher demand among existing ones, leading to creation of new jobs.

In order to become a driver for such a company, every person needs to meet a few necessary conditions (e.g., that the person has not been prosecuted, 5 – year – driving experience). At the same time, the company defines their service as innovative and offers an application through which you can order “Assistance on the way” from point A to point B. This “Assistance on the way includes “renting a car with a driver”, who does not have to meet the criteria defined by the Law of Road Transport.

Drivers are mostly engaged on the basis of temporary or seasonal work agreements, i.e., jobs that do not last longer than 120 working days a year, or supplementary employment agreement. As a result of such agreements, drivers are not entitled to full-time employment, paid holidays, sick leave, adequately paid overtime work, etc. Moreover, as a consequence of the discrepancy between the Labor Law and the Employment and Insurance Law, drivers’ status can hardly be qualified as employment, nor can it be qualified as unemployment.

Conclusion: Can the UK Supreme Court’s Decision Have an Impact on Other Legislations Worldwide?

This decision will definitely lead to significant market consequences in the near future. The dilemma is whether this decision will have an influence on the similar issue that Serbia is facing. It is hard to estimate at what moment our domestic issue with the drivers’ status and rights will slowly begin to be resolved.

However, one thing is for sure, the decision by the UK Supreme Court will set a high-standards in the “gig economy” which will mostly be implemented worldwide. As a consequence, it may be expected that our government will start solving the problem in the nearest future, which will lead to similar results on the market as in the UK and at the same time start to treat equally all players on the market. 

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 Kristina Pavlovic, Associate, and Petar Knezevic, Trainee, Samardzic, Oreski & Grbovic