Category: Serbia

Serbia’s capital markets are maturing, with bond issuances expected in 2025 and renewed interest in alternative investment funds following reduced thresholds, according to ZSP Advokati Partner Nikola Sugaris.

“The Serbian capital markets have seen some notable activity recently,” Sugaris highlights. “A key development is the ongoing capital markets project, driven by the Serbian government and the World Bank, which aims to diversify the country’s creditor base. After months of preparatory work, including selecting advisors and setting up terms of reference, the project is moving into a more advanced stage. We’re now looking at concrete steps toward bond issuances, which are expected to debut in the first half of 2025.” Due diligence processes for these issuances should already be underway, he adds, “signaling that stakeholders are firmly focused on execution.”

On a related note, Sugaris draws attention to alternative investment funds, “which have struggled to gain traction since their introduction under the 2019 legislative framework, are seeing renewed interest. Fewer than 10 funds and just 12 licensed management companies currently operate in Serbia. However, recent legislative changes have reduced investment thresholds for individuals investing in private funds, making these funds more accessible.” Sugaris notes that “for semi-professional investors, the threshold has dropped from EUR 50,000 to EUR 5,000, while for private equity investments, the minimum has fallen from EUR 250,000 to EUR 50,000. These changes aim to democratize investment opportunities and encourage broader participation.” Although no new funds have been launched yet, he says that “the market is starting to respond, with a growing awareness among investors and a shift away from traditional real estate-focused investments. The hope is that this renewed interest will eventually drive growth in the sector, despite the regulatory challenges that remain.”

In the banking and finance space, Sugaris says that “activity picked up in the latter part of the year after a quieter first half. Borrowers are rushing to finalize financing deals before year-end, spurred by the ECB’s recent reduction in interest rates and the prospect of further reductions. This uptick includes various types of financing, but project financing appears particularly prominent.”

From a legislative standpoint, “alongside the reduced thresholds for alternative investment funds, there have been amendments to the Energy Act,” Sugaris says. “These changes, enacted in November, introduce new concepts such as licensing aggregators to facilitate energy purchases for SMEs and promoting active participation in the energy market, particularly in renewables. The amendments seem to formalize trends that were already emerging, aligning the law with market realities.” Looking ahead, “the renewables sector remains a key focus, with hopes for increased M&A activity as the market matures,” he continues.

Finally, “within the legal services market, we’ve noticed a shift in dynamics,” Sugaris points out. “The trend of partners leaving mid-sized or large firms to start their own practices seems to be slowing. Instead, there’s a growing sense that the market may see more consolidation, potentially through mergers. On the talent front, competition is heating up, prompting firms to rethink traditional mentorship models and consider how advancements in AI might reshape the profession.” Overall, “the legal market feels mature, with firms now focusing on marginal improvements and navigating an increasingly competitive landscape,” he concludes.

In light of Elon Musk’s recently expanded lawsuit, which includes antitrust claims and names Microsoft as an additional defendant, OpenAI faces yet another legal challenge. As a global leader in the development of generative artificial intelligence, OpenAI remains committed to its mission: creating AI technology that benefits humanity while actively addressing legal and ethical dilemmas.

Musk’s Lawsuit: Allegations of Market Monopolization

According to the expanded lawsuit, OpenAI and Microsoft are accused of attempting to monopolize the generative AI market through exclusive licensing agreements and practices that allegedly exclude competition. Musk’s legal team argues that these agreements violate antitrust regulations, labeling them as “a merger lacking regulatory approval”.

The lawsuit highlights several key issues:

• Market Monopolization: Microsoft and OpenAI are alleged to jointly control critical resources and data essential for the development of advanced AI models, making market entry challenging for new competitors.
• Data Misuse: The alleged use of data from the X platform and other sources without proper authorization presents a significant legal concern.

Relationship with Microsoft

The relationship between OpenAI and Microsoft represents a strategic partnership deeply rooted in AI development and deployment. Microsoft, as one of OpenAI’s largest financial backers, has invested billions of dollars to support the advancement of generative AI technologies, including ChatGPT. This partnership extends beyond financial support, encompassing technological integration that has significantly expanded the capabilities of both companies.

Through this collaboration, OpenAI’s technologies have been embedded in Microsoft’s products, such as Azure and Office, providing billions of users worldwide access to innovative AI-powered tools.

While the partnership has in many ways revolutionized the AI market, it has also faced criticism and legal scrutiny. Exclusive agreements and the dominance of Microsoft’s products in the market have raised concerns about potential monopolistic behavior, culminating in antitrust claims such as those in Musk’s expanded lawsuit.

Conclusion

Antitrust concerns in the AI industry are becoming an increasingly prominent focus for regulators worldwide. As technologies like generative AI grow to become integral to businesses and society, the need for regulation and fair market practices intensifies.

Ultimately, legal proceedings like Musk’s lawsuit underscore the complexity and dynamism of the AI industry, highlighting the necessity for clearer legal and ethical frameworks.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For further information, feel free to contact us.

By Ana Radojevic, Senior Associate, PR Legal

Non-material damage is determined by Serbian law as inflicting on another physical or psychological pain or causing fear. Also, the law prescribes that the court shall, after finding that the circumstances of the case and particularly the intensity of pains and fear, and their duration, provide a corresponding ground thereof – award equitable damages for physical pains suffered, for mental anguish suffered due to reduction of life activities, for becoming disfigured, for offended reputation, honor, freedom or rights of personality, for the death of a close person, as well as for fear suffered.

Bearing in mind said, the claimant must address the court with a claim regarding each aspect of non-material damage and such a claim must contain a defined amount of reimbursement.

The amount of indemnity for non-material damages is determined by the court separately in each case, depending on the intensity, scope, and duration of inflicted physical or psychological pain or caused fear. The plaintiff must claim a certain amount of damages because the amount of damages is an obligatory part of the lawsuit. Secondary claims accompanying the main claim for the non-material damage compensation are statutory default interest claims and claims of the costs of the proceeding. 

STATUTORY DEFAULT INTEREST

In addition to the amount of compensation for non-material damage, which serves as a form of satisfaction for the plaintiff, aimed at alleviating the disturbance in the plaintiff’s spiritual sphere caused by the defendant’s actions, the defendant could also be obligated, through the court’s decision, to pay statutory default interest. 

Statutory default interest on compensation for non-material damage in the Serbian legal system serves both a compensatory and punitive function. The compensatory function is to compensate the creditor for the harm suffered due to the delay in paying non-material damage and to compel the debtor to fulfill their obligation within a specified period. This allows the plaintiff to partially recover the loss resulting from the inability to access the due amount promptly. Additionally, the statutory default interest serves a punitive function, discouraging the debtor from using the delay to postpone their obligation. This also further compensates the creditor for the lost time and the opportunity to use the funds, motivating the defendant to fulfill their obligation to pay compensation for non-material damage promptly.

A plaintiff’s right to claim non-material damage compensation exists from the moment he suffered the damage. However, an exact amount of damage compensation is being established on the day when the first instance court decision is rendered. Because of this, Serbian courts consider that the plaintiff has no right to claim statutory default interest starting from the day he suffered the damage until the day the first instance court decision is rendered. However, there are different views on this issue. 

The first instance proceedings in some cases could last several years. Because of this fact, we deem that it would be justified to adjudicate the statutory default interest to the plaintiff starting from the day he suffered non-material damage and that the legal framework should be changed in this direction. This change could motivate the one who caused the damage to offer and make damage compensation out of the court and to avoid lengthy court proceedings and the statutory default interest during the first instance proceeding.

Another option is that the day of filing the lawsuit to the court be considered as a day on which the statutory default interest would be accrued.

However, Serbian case law currently stands at the position that statutory default interest in case of non-material damage accrues from the day a first instance court’s decision, establishing the defendant’s obligation to compensate for the non-material damage, is rendered until the full payment of adjudicated compensation is made.

COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS 

The plaintiff has the right to be reimbursed for all necessary and unavoidable costs incurred during the civil procedure for claiming non-material damage, provided that he succeeds in the proceeding. These costs include the expert witness fees, the costs of legal representation, court fees etc. The reimbursement of legal fees is governed by the lawyer’s tariff, based on the value of the claim. Also, the court fees are calculated based on the value of the claim.

Given that the plaintiff cannot precisely determine the extent of the damage, since each plaintiff values the harm differently compared to material damage, which can be quantified, it often happens in practice that the court awards a lower amount than the one requested in the claim. This is because the court considers that awarding the full amount requested would favor the plaintiff’s desire for enrichment, which is incompatible with the nature and social purpose of compensation for non-material damage. This situation raises a practical issue when adjudicating the costs of the proceeding. When adjudicating the costs the courts in Serbia consider only the value of the claim which is adjudicated in the first instance decision and they do not take into the consideration value of the claim made in the lawsuit. As a result, the amount of adjudicated costs of the proceeding is sometimes lower than the plaintiff actually paid based on the amount claimed in the lawsuit.

CONCLUSION

Skillful legal aid before and throughout the proceeding is crucial for exercising all the rights and completing the proceeding regarding non-material damage in a satisfactory way for the party involved. Although of secondary importance, if handled right issues of statutory default interest and costs of the proceeding regarding non-material damage could make a significant difference for the parties involved.

By Aleksandar Grujic, Senior Associate, and Dimitrije Stepanovic, Associate, JPM Partners

The Serbian Parliament has passed the amendments to the Energy Act, introducing significant reforms to the nation’s energy policy – a landmark change is lifting the long-standing moratorium on nuclear power plant construction, which has been in place since 1989 following the Chernobyl disaster. The updated legislation also includes broader measures aimed at modernizing Serbia’s energy sector.

Key Changes in the Amendments

1. Nuclear Energy Development:

The moratorium, established during the former Yugoslav era, is officially repealed. This paves the way for developing nuclear energy as part of Serbia’s strategic energy plans. The amendments introduce regulatory frameworks for nuclear energy production, covering safety standards, environmental considerations, and international best practices.

The government plans to establish a Directorate for Nuclear Energy Development. It will also prepare a Peaceful Nuclear Energy Development Program in partnership with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and European institutions.

Serbia reportedly aims to explore the deployment of small modular reactors (SMRs) with a target capacity of 1,200 MW. International partners, including France’s EDF and other global entities, conduct ongoing technical studies and feasibility assessments.

2. Support for Renewable and Alternative Energy:

The amendments encourage the use of waste-derived fuels. They also introduce mechanisms like aggregation to enable small businesses and consumers to participate actively in the energy market. A certification process for installers of renewable energy systems is being established, aligning with EU standards.

The government plans to diversify energy sources with a mix of renewable and nuclear energy, complementing ongoing solar and gas-powered projects. Furthermore, the amendments lay the groundwork for integrating Serbia’s electricity market with neighboring countries, fostering regional energy stability​. ​

3. Reforms for Electricity Consumers:

Consumers can now opt for dynamic electricity pricing, enabling more flexibility closely based on market rates. Additionally, net metering practices for prosumers (electricity producers who are also consumers) will be phased out by the end of 2026. Prosumers in the household category will now use net billing instead.

Furthermore, the amendments introduce the “active buyer” status, primarily for businesses, allowing them to produce, store, or sell electricity without it being their main business activity. This status also enables participation in ancillary services and flexibility markets, while providing conditions for Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs). These changes support the decarbonization of the economy by allowing businesses to source green energy, reducing electricity costs. The tools aim to prepare companies for carbon pricing, both domestically and in exports to the EU, under the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).

4. Balancing Market and Capacity Mechanisms

New provisions include creating a balancing market for electricity, ensuring that producers and consumers maintain supply-demand equilibrium. The amendments require all market participants to take responsibility for balancing deviations in the power system. Additionally, they mandate financial contributions from these participants to help maintain the system’s balance. It also introduces the concept of a capacity mechanism and opens the market for ancillary services, allowing energy storage owners and active buyers to offer their services.

These reforms reflect Serbia’s efforts to diversify its energy sources and modernize its infrastructure, ensuring sustainability, energy security, and alignment with global energy trends. Partnerships with France’s EDF and other international stakeholders highlight Serbia’s commitment to developing nuclear energy responsibly.​

By Vuk Lekovic, Senior Associate, and Marko Jovic, Associate, Gecic Law

Back in the year 2021 the platform „eConsultations“ was set up under the Decision of the Government of the Republic of Serbia on the establishment of platform „eConsultations“ with the goal of enabling easier participation of interested parties/public in the process of preparation and adoption of not only laws, but also of other regulations and acts, by possibility for the public to be informed through this platform of whether certain law or regulation is in the process of preparation or of when shall the public hearing regarding a draft law take place, as well as by possibility for the interested parties/public to take part in the process of preparation and adoption of these acts by providing comments electronically (online).

In September 2024 the Government of the Republic of Serbia adopted a new decision – the Decision on managing and manner of use of the platform „eConsultations“ which brought certain changes in comparison to the initially established system, mainly in terms of somewhere different distribution of competencies for managing and conducting of expert tasks related to the platform, but without affecting the substance and purpose of the platform “eConsultations” – which is that this is a unique electronic platform for conducting of consultations and public hearings in the process of preparation and adoption of regulations (and, pursuant to the wording of the new decision of the Government, planning documents).

In the light of adoption of the new Decision of the Government on managing and manner of use of the platform „eConsultations“ it would be interesting to make a short overview of the main features of this platform, and thereof enable a wider circle of parties that are potentially interested in the process of preparation and adoption of (certain) regulations and that would „have something to say“ in the context of amendments/supplements/introduction of new regulations proposed by public bodies, to get familiarized with the possibilities offered through this platform, or to remind them that this way they can follow the activities of public bodies before one law is yet in the phase of law proposal, i.e. before some other regulation is adopted.

What is the first thing platform „eConsultations“ provides us with – Information. All relevant information on consultations and public hearings in regard to regulations and planning documents adopted by public bodies within their competencies are published on the platform „eConsultations“.

Thus, instead of having interested parties search e.g. web pages of different ministries in order to be informed on whether the preparation or adoption of new regulations or amendments and supplements of existing ones are planned, the regulations and other acts in the process of preparation (working drafts) or in the process of public hearing (draft laws), proposed by different authorities (public bodies), are listed in chronological order (from latest)  on the platform „eConsultations“.

Platform also provides information on the time period in which comments/suggestions/remarks in the process of preparation of proposal of certain regulations or planning documents (or their revisions) are being collected, i.e. on the time period in which comments regarding certain draft law are being collected, i.e. on time period when public hearing is conducted.

The public hearing regarding the draft Law on seeds and planting materials of agricultural and ornamental plants, published by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management, was active until not so long ago (until 19 November 2024), same as the notice on collecting comments on proposed amendments of the program for improvement of management of public policies and regulatory reform 2021-2025 with Action plan (until 15 November 2024), published by the Republic Secretariat for Public Policies. Thus, regulations, i.e. planning documents in the process of preparation from various fields are all publicly available in one place – the platform “eConsultations”.

Who is obliged to use the platform „eConsultations“ – in connection with the previous point, it should be mentioned that the state administrative bodies are the ones that are obliged to timely publish complete information on consultations and public hearings in connection with the regulations within their scope of competencies on the platform „eConsultations“, while autonomous provinces and local self-government units may do so (but are not under obligation to do so). Therefore, if you are interested in activities on the autonomous province or local level, it is not certain that the subject of your interest shall be visible and available on this platform.

What other conveniences are available at the platform „eConsultations“ – besides providing information on active phases of consultations in the process of preparation of certain regulation/planning documents, or on active public hearings regarding certain draft laws, platform also provides information on how can one send/submit its comments/suggestions.

Registration with platform „eConsultations“ – besides these general information/features that are available regardless of whether you are a registered user of the platform or not, platform „eConsultations“ provides the possibility to become a registered user (individual or as a representative of an organization). In order to register one needs to use either a qualified electronic certificate or ConsentID mobile app. Besides the possibility of submitting comments to working versions of regulations/planning documents, i.e. within public hearings regarding draft laws, registration enables for its users other, additional features (e.g. selection of fields of interest for which you wish to be provided with notifications).

By Marija Vukcevic, Senior Associate, JPM Partners

In this article, we address the issue of the redistribution of working hours, specifically the conditions and limitations for its introduction and application within a single calendar year.

Basic Rules

The provisions of the Labor Law (“LL”) stipulate that an employer can execute the redistribution of working hours when required by:

– Nature of Activity: For example, in construction, agriculture, or tourism, where there is increased business activity during certain periods (seasons) while it is reduced during others.
– Work Organization: For instance, to avoid disruptions in the production process.
– Better Utilization of Resources: For example, certain weather conditions throughout the year may favor more rational use of resources.
– Rational Use of Working Time: For instance, aligning working hours with climatic conditions in agriculture.
– Execution of Specific Tasks within Set Deadlines: For example, when there are contractual deadlines for completing specific tasks.

The redistribution of working hours is carried out so that the total working hours of an employee over a six-month period during the calendar year do not exceed the contracted working hours on average.

A collective agreement may stipulate that the redistribution of working hours is not connected to the calendar year and can last longer than six months, but no longer than nine months.

In cases of redistribution of working hours, working time cannot exceed 60 hours per week.

The redistribution may cover one or more job positions, or a portion of employees or all employees at the employer’s company.

Additionally, the redistribution can encompass the entire period of six or nine months or another shorter period (e.g. one or more months).

Finally, as a rule, redistribution implies that employees work longer hours in the first part of the redistribution period and shorter hours in the second part. However, longer and shorter working periods within the overall redistribution period may alternate.

In any case, the duration of working time throughout the entire redistribution period must not exceed the contracted working hours (full-time/part-time) on average.

Limitations and Prohibitions

The redistribution of working hours cannot be carried out for jobs where reduced working hours have been established in accordance with LL.

Redistribution of working hours is prohibited for employees under 18 years of age.

An employer may execute a redistribution of working hours for a pregnant employee and for an employee who is a parent with a child under three years old or a child with severe physical or mental disabilities—only with written consent from the employee.

Redistribution and Overtime

Considering the abovementioned, the redistribution of working hours itself is not considered overtime work.

However, an employee whose employment relationship has ended before the expiration of the period for which working hour redistribution is being implemented has the right to have their hours worked beyond their contracted working time during this redistribution:

– Counted towards their working time and for their employer to deregister them from mandatory social insurance at the end of that time, or
– Compensated and paid as overtime work.

Finally, there is a possibility for an employee to agree to work on average longer than their contracted working time (full-time/part-time) during redistribution; in this case, any hours worked beyond average working time will be calculated and paid as overtime.

Position of the Ministry of Labor, Employment, Veterans and Social Affairs of the Republic of Serbia

In practice, it is common for employers to operate in industries where seasonality is particularly important. Thus, there is a need to organize two redistributions of working hours within a calendar year for periods lasting six months each. On the other hand, employers’ general acts often do not foresee additional possibilities provided by LL.

In this regard, the Ministry expressed in opinion number 002932205 2024 13400 001 002 102 010 dated October 25, 2024, that there are no obstacles for employers to carry out redistributions of working hours multiple times within a calendar year if each redistribution does not last longer than six months.

The Ministry also stated that it is not competent to assess specific reasons for which redistributions are organized and whether those reasons can be identical when implementing multiple redistributions within a calendar 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 Borinka Dobrnjac, Senior Associate, PR Legal 

Milica Topic has become the new Regional Legal and Compliance Officer-Eastern Europe at Beko Balkans.

Beko is a domestic appliance brand.

Topic has been with Beko Balkans since 2021 when she joined as a Legal Compliance & Data Privacy Officer. In 2022, she became a Lead Legal and Compliance Counsel (as reported by CEE In House Matters on December 23, 2022) and, in 2023, a Senior Lead Legal and Compliance Counsel.

Between 2019 and 2021, Topic was a Legal and Personal Affairs Department Manager at AIGO (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on September 10, 2019). Earlier still, she was the Head of Legal Affairs at Confluence Property Management between 2009 and 2019. 

Before moving in-house, Topic was a solo practitioner between 2007 and 2010 and a Senior Legal Counsel at Schoenherr Belgrade. 

Originally reported by CEE In-House Matters.

As someone leading my firm’s digital transformation efforts over the past five years, together with the firm’s Senior Partners, I’ve been involved in the adoption of artificial intelligence and other advanced technologies. It has been a challenging yet stimulating journey, and I want to share my insights into what drove this transformation.

Rising client demands catalyzed our technological revolution. Today’s clients are increasingly well-informed, connected globally, and subsequently, more demanding. They seek customized legal services tailored to their unique circumstances, delivered rapidly. The days of one-size-fits-all advice have given way to expectations of personalized guidance adjusted to each situation.

Moreover, clients will no longer tolerate lengthy wait times. In our instantaneous world, speed of response is key to satisfaction. Firms realized meeting heightened demands required streamlining processes, improving communication, and achieving quicker, more efficient results through technology.

Client satisfaction is now paramount. Firms delivering high-quality, customized service at the pace clients demand will succeed in this environment. This imperative prompted firms to adopt technologies enabling them to satisfy, even surpass expectations.

I recall a frank discussion with a longtime corporate client questioning why reviewing thousands of documents took weeks when AI could perform it in days. That conversation was jarring; clients now benchmark us against other industries’ innovations. They want faster turnarounds, customized advice, and transparency. AI was essential, not optional, for satisfying these expectations.

Attracting and Retaining Top Talent

The changing expectations of new lawyers entering the workforce are compelling the adoption of legal technologies. This next generation brings novel skills and desires shaped by immersion in the digital sphere. Naturally, they expect their working conditions to mirror contemporary realities.

The new breed of attorneys eagerly seeks innovations that accelerate comprehension of complex cases. They pursue mechanisms to accelerate their learning curves and maintain acuity on evolving laws. For them, continuous learning and proficiency growth are not preferences—they’re imperatives.

That understanding propelled an overhaul of our talent administration approach. We invested in AI-backed legal research and predictive analysis platforms. The alteration was striking. Now, trainee lawyers can swiftly grasp complex issues and meaningfully contribute to matters much earlier in their careers.

Practices realize attracting and preserving top ability imposes providing access to progressive technological solutions. Not only do these instruments aid novice attorneys’ development but also cultivate job fulfillment by allowing focus on higher-level tasks over everyday paper reviews.

“This is why I pursued law—to solve complicated problems, not expend hours on routine document examination,” affirmed one associate. By offering cutting-edge tools, we’ve improved retention and become a magnet for top law graduates eager to employ the latest legal technologies in their work.

Utilizing Insights from an Ocean of Data

One of our biggest hurdles was managing the vast quantity of unstructured information accumulated over decades. While a treasure trove of knowledge existed, we lacked an efficient means to leverage it.

Legal technologies have proven fundamental in excavating value from this data mountain. Advanced data administration systems, powered by artificial intelligence and machine learning, can rapidly analyze and systematize extensive archives. This enables lawyers to access relevant data expeditiously, recognize patterns, and gain understanding to navigate legal strategies.

Implementing an AI-driven repository of expertise was transformative. It could analyze thousands of previous cases, contracts, and legal opinions, deriving invaluable insights.

However, the process wasn’t without setbacks. We had to overcome concerns regarding data security and confidentiality. It required months of work with our IT team and outside consultants to ensure our AI systems met the highest standards of data protection. The labor paid off – we now have a robust, secure system affording us a notable competitive edge.

Staying Competitive in a Changing Legal Landscape

Perhaps the most compelling reason for our AI adoption was the simple need to retain our competitive position. We saw other firms starting to leverage AI and automation to provide more cost-effective services. If we failed to adapt, we risked losing our place in the market.

Implementing AI allowed us to restructure our pricing models. For certain services, we could move away from billing by the hour to fixed-fee arrangements, providing more certainty for our clients. It was a significant shift in our business model, but one that our clients valued.

I recall the excitement when we pitched our new AI-enhanced services to a potential client. They were impressed by our ability to offer rapid contract analysis and risk assessment. We secured the client, marking a turning point in how we positioned our firm in the market.

Conclusion: Lessons Learned

Looking back on our AI journey, I can say it’s been transformative. We’ve become more efficient, more insightful, and more responsive to our clients’ needs. However, the challenges we have faced have not always been straightforward to overcome. Significant technological obstacles required meaningful effort to overcome. Shifting to a new organizational culture where AI plays an integrated role necessitated altering established procedures and mindsets. Additionally, the ongoing task of continuously retraining personnel to work alongside intelligent systems forms a permanent process.

A core lesson I’ve learned is that the successful adoption of AI depends not solely on the technology alone – rather, it centers around people. It centers around facilitating how our lawyers perceive AI as a tool enhancing their expertise instead of replacing it. It centers around illustrating to clients the tangible benefits arising from these novel technologies. It centers around cultivating a culture of innovation where the initiative to explore how AI can progress our legal practice is encouraged across all.

Looking ahead, the possibilities for the future are what excite me. AI is changing not merely how we practice law; it is changing what it implies to be a lawyer. And for firms willing to embrace this change unfolding, the opportunities are infinite.

By Nemanja Stepanovic, Managing Director, JPM & Partners

Serbia appears to be entering a period of robust growth and transformation, driven in large part by Expo 2027 and targeted investment initiatives, according to MMD Advokati Partner Rastko Malisic. While the real estate and hospitality sectors are at the forefront of this boom, Malisic notes that other industries are grappling with challenges amid broader geopolitical uncertainties.

“Expo 2027 is a pinnacle event for Serbia, and it’s catalyzing significant growth in the real estate sector,” Malisic begins. “For years, Serbian infrastructure and real estate have been expanding, as we’ve seen in the case of Belgrade Waterfront – over the next three years, we expect this trend to continue.” According to Malisic, the hotel industry, in particular, is poised for substantial growth, with “new chains and boutique hotels already opening up almost monthly. We expect this trend to not only continue but to keep growing.”

Moreover, Malisic reports developments regarding corporate bonds. “The government, with support from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World Bank Group, is working to incentivize Serbian private companies to issue corporate bonds. Several consultants have already been appointed for the project by the WBG, and the due diligence phase is expected to commence soon,” he says. “This project will unfold over the next three years and aims to unlock potential in the Belgrade Stock Exchange, creating new investment channels. The values we’re looking at are EUR 5 million and above, with no top limit in place,” Malisic explains, adding that the involvement of the EBRD and WB might rouse “significant interest from investment funds, making this initiative a promising new avenue for corporate financing in Serbia.”

Still, while some sectors are booming, some appear to face challenges. “Certain sectors, like IT and automotive, are experiencing difficulties. We’ve had an increase in requests related to employee redundancies and labor force cuts, which is concerning,” Malisic reflects. “Serbia’s smaller market size means that some global market shocks, like those that affected the EU or US over the past few years, are only now impacting our industries. In addition to this, broader geopolitical uncertainties and shifting local politics add further unpredictability, making it challenging to forecast long-term outcomes for these sectors,” he explains.

Domestic legislative developments appear somewhat sluggish too. “Political issues have slowed progress in the parliament over the last few months, with few major pieces of legislation moving forward,” Malisic shares. However, with Serbia remaining heavily reliant on foreign direct investment, Malisic shares that the framework regulating FDI might soon change. “While Serbia used to welcome nearly any investment, we’re now focusing on high-tech sectors and the hotel industry. Most of this investment in the hotel sector is directed toward Belgrade, and, spa and mineral water areas across the country. Having this in mind, the framework for attracting FDI, especially in the hotel sector, is evolving to accommodate this more targeted approach, so there’s at least movement on that front,” he explains.

Finally, Malisic shares that emerging technologies are impacting the legislative landscape in Serbia as well. “Legislators are increasingly aware of the need to create a framework that can support digital currencies and crypto operations, allowing major international players to enter the market and operate in a structured, supportive environment,” he says. “Over the next few years, I expect to see significant changes in the regulatory framework to accommodate these developments, which could open up entirely new investment possibilities in Serbia,” Malisic concludes.

CWB has successfully represented the interests of Renault and its Romanian subsidiary Dacia before the Serbian Supreme Court.

According to CWB, the Serbian Supreme Court confirmed “the first- and second-instance decisions stating that the import and sale of car parts visually identical to those protected by industrial design registrations valid in Serbia constituted industrial design infringement. This final instance decision confirms the first ruling of its kind in Serbian practice related to counterfeit car parts, and is therefore significant because the task of the Supreme Court is to standardize judicial practice, and the lower courts are almost always guided by the views of the Supreme Court.”

CWB also reports that the case concerned “court proceedings against a Serbian company that was distributing replacement headlights, side rearview mirrors, and grilles for the Dacia Sandero car without the plaintiff’s consent. The car parts were visually identical to the original ones protected by Renault’s designs and they bore Dacia’s trademarks.”

The CWB team included Senior Associate Branislav Krnetic.