Category: Serbia

Harrisons has advised the EBRD on its EUR 20 million loan to Banca Intesa Beograd.

According to Harrisons, the loan will be used to support Serbian corporates, small businesses, and municipalities “facing a decrease in their activities and turnover due to the Covid-19 pandemic.” According to the firm, “this short-term financing is part of the EBRD’s Covid-19 Solidarity Package to support its existing clients in response to the economic consequences of the coronavirus pandemic.” 

Banca Intesa Beograd, a subsidiary of Intesa Sanpaolo, primarily focuses on retail, investment, and private banking, as well as investment management and public finance. The bank holds a market share of 16 percent by total assets as of the end of 2019, and employs approximately 3,000 people across 154 offices in Serbia.

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development has invested more than EUR 6.3 billion in 277 projects in Serbia to date. The EBRD is focusing on support for private-sector development, improvement of public utility services, and on the overall transition towards a green economy.

Harrisons’ team consisted of Consultant Ines Matijevic-Papulin, Senior Associate Jovan Cirkovic, and Associate Mina Markovic.

It’s no secret that competition law across the Western Balkans has been greatly shaped by EU accession, with local developments regularly driven by EU practice and the EU’s regulatory framework.

Even if this were not the case in practice, the Stabilization and Association Agreements are quite clear: any anti-competitive practices are to be assessed on the basis of criteria arising from competition rules in the EU, as well as interpretative instruments adopted by EU institutions. Therefore, precedents by the European Commission or the Court of Justice of the European Union are routinely referred to in the decisions of the Serbian Commission for Protection of Competition, while the EC’s annual progress reports underline that the country’s legislative framework is broadly in line with EU rules, and Serbia is considered moderately prepared in the area of competition policy.

The nature of the cases themselves has gone relatively less explored. Indeed, there have been several investigations before the Commission that were clearly inspired by the practice of the EC or specific member states. We are not talking about run-of-the-mill resale price maintenance or bid-rigging cases, which can be found everywhere, but highly specific matters, with clear parallels between the different jurisdictions. This trend of comparative interplay has only increased with the growing sophistication, experience, and track record of the Serbian enforcer.

Maybe the first high-profile local case clearly cribbed from European practice was the Commission’s 2012 Frikom decision, inspired by the EC’s landmark 1998 Unilever/Van Den Bergh case, and looking at similar issues pertaining to freezer and outlet exclusivity in the ice cream market. While the lag in this instance was quite long (and involved multiple restructurings of local competition rules, as well as the country itself), further practice would reduce it significantly. The Commission’s 2015 Tobacco Industry investigation (terminated in 2019) echoed Container Shipping, as well as a very similar Romanian investigation pursued between 2010 and 2014, in examining potential price signalling on oligopolistic markets. The Commission’s 2018 Visa and Mastercard interchange fee investigations closely examined the similarities and differences in the framework for payment card schemes in Serbia and the EU. In a recent individual exemption case, the Commission relied on relevant practice by the French Autorité de la Concurrence, decided only a few months prior.

Closely following comparative practice can save the authority significant time and resources by allowing it to focus on issues and matters that have had a recognized potentially detrimental effect on competition. At the same time, since undertakings are more aware of competition rules than ever, both complainants and defendants increasingly rely on examples in international practice to support their claim, finding succour in authoritative analysis and interpretation of often broad rules and principles. This creates a positive feedback loop, forcing the authority to be ever-more vigilant in following the latest trends, lest it risk being overtaken by experienced lawyers. As the world is growing smaller and more interconnected, information about relevant practice has never been easier to track down. This does not mean that the authority should be allowed to uncritically copy/paste international practice – each case is a beast of its own, and local market circumstances might well turn out to be only superficially similar to the original model. Also, the models themselves may be flawed, as a number of decisions and unforeseen consequences by international authorities have proven over the years. However, in Serbian competition law, following authoritative trends and robust analysis and staying updated is no longer a “nice-to-have” perk in your legal representation, but a requirement.

Simultaneously, multinationals should be careful in structuring their operations and procedural strategies with respect to accession countries. Focusing on an investigation by the EC is understandable; however, one should also be mindful of the ripple effects among the EU’s neighbors. After all, although it is likely that any problematic practices would be treated similarly, a decision by the EC does not automatically cover any anti-competitive effects in Serbia, BiH, or Montenegro, and the local authorities are fully justified in pursuing a same or similar investigation. And indeed, why not pick the low-hanging fruit?

By Bojan Vuckovic, Partner, and Veljko Smiljanic, Senior Associate, independent attorneys at law in cooperation with Karanovic & Partners

This Article was originally published in Issue 7.8 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

Pursuant to Article 16, para. 1 of the Law on Hospitality Management (Official Gazette of RS no. 17/2019), the Rulebook on the manner of entry, operation, keeping and using the central information system, its content and type of information has been adopted (Official Gazette of RS, no. 87/2020) and it has been in force since 1 October 2020 (“the Rulebook”).

The Rulebook prescribes the manner of entry, operation, keeping and using special information system e-Tourist.

What is e-Tourist?

Central information system in the area of hospitality management and tourism “e-Tourist“ is an electronic system that contains relevant information on providers of accommodation services and accommodation facilities; it is used for their registration and entry of other information related to performance of hospitality, nautical, hunting tourism/tourism businesses or services in tourism.

The purpose of introducing e-Tourist system

The main purpose of introducing e-Tourist system is to centralise information on accommodation providers and accommodation facilities in the Republic of Serbia, as well as suppression of grey economy and promotion of Serbia’s competitiveness as tourist destination.

The main benefits of this system for hospitality operators are simplified check-in and check-out of domestic and foreign tourists, registration of paid residence taxes, as well as simplified administrative procedure and operation. On the other hand, tourists are ensured safe stay, higher quality of service and accommodation in legal facilities, while state institutions and tourist organisations will have simplified monitoring of tourism operation and daily insight into accommodation facilities and accommodation providers and more efficient collection of taxes and residence fees.

What is e-Tourist composed of?

This system is functionally categorised according to the following thematic units:

1) record on hospitality operators;

2) record on accommodation facilities;

3) information on users of accommodation services;

4) categorisation of accommodation facilities;

5) residence taxes;

6) reports and statistics.

Record on hospitality operators contains basic information, address and contact details for seat, branch/separate place of the operator, as well as basic information and contact details of responsible person, and possibly the information on agent and other relevant information.

Record on accommodation facilities contains information on accommodation facility, namely: type of accommodation facility; address and contacts; area where the facility is located; auxiliary contents; structure of accommodation units, as well as other relevant information.

Accommodation facilities subject to mandatory registration

Legal obligation of registration refers to accommodation service providers in categorized and uncategorized facilities.

Accommodation service providers in categorized facilities register on the e-Tourist system using the registration data they received from the Ministry in charge of tourism.

Hospitality management operator providing accommodation service in uncategorized facilities, such as bed and breakfast, inns, guest houses, boatels, lodges, ethno homes, campgrounds, hunting lodges and huts, shall be obliged, prior to the outset of operation, to submit properly filled registration form to a local self-government office where the facility is located.

In accordance with the Rulebook, facilities are obliged to register all domestic and foreign tourists through e-Tourist system from 1 October 2020.

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 Sara Necic, Senior Associate, and Natalija Dukic, Associate, PR Legal

The First Primary Court in Belgrade recently rendered the first ruling obliging the tour operator to refund the client the travel costs to traveling abroad canceled due to the SARS-CoV-2 virus epidemic.

A few days ago, news broke that the First Basic Court in Belgrade issued the first ruling in a dispute in which it obliged the travel agency – the tour operator,  to pay the client – the passenger, who had paid the price of a tourist trip abroad in advance, that was canceled due to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, to refund the money paid with the appropriate interest, according to the provisions of the Law on Consumer Protection.

In the proceedings that preceded the ruling, the travel agency referred to the fact that the airplane flight was canceled due to reasons for which they cannot be held accountable, which was a well-known situation related to the virus SARS-CoV-2. Further, the travel agency stated that they offered the client – the passenger, another travel date and accommodation with the issuance of a certificate of travel replacement according to the Decree of the Government of the Republic of Serbia on the offering of replacement travel which was canceled or not realized due to the Covid-19 disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia” no. 63/2020) as well as that, in this case, there was no acquisition without grounds due to the fact that the money that was paid by the passengers was transferred to the agency’s foreign partner travel agency, but the client did not accept the conditions of the new arrangement and instead terminated the contract.

The Court took the stance that the passenger, i.e. the consumer, as a contracting party from the travel contract, according to the relevant provisions of the Law on consumer protection (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia” no. 64/2014, 6/2016 and 44/2018), in situations where the travel organizer who is forced to change certain relevant provisions of the contract (i.e. the price, destination, means of transport, characteristics or category of the transport, date, type, location, category or level of comfort of the accommodation) before the contracted date of departure and who is obligated to inform the passenger, has the right to choose whether he wants to accept the offered changes to the travel contract or to terminate the contract, of which he is obligated to inform the travel organizer who, in the situation where the passenger chooses to terminate the contract, is obligated to return the received travel costs in the full amount without reductions.

At the same time, the Court assessed that the reference of the travel agency to the aforementioned Decree was without effect due to the fact that it, as a general act of lower legal standing than the Law, cannot derogate the Law, not even if its provisions were imperative, which they are not in the case of the Decree. The provisions of the Decree were exclusively indicative, therefore in such cases, the provisions of the Law on consumer protection as a “lex specialis” shall be applied, as well as general provisions of the Law on Torts and Contracts concerning the rights and obligations of contractual parties that are binding from the moment they concluded the contract.

Lastly, the Court also concluded that according to the relevant provisions of the Law on Consumer Protection, the passenger has the right to choose to terminate the travel contract even if it was canceled due to reasons for which the travel agency, as the travel organizer, is not responsible, i.e. natural disasters, which include pandemics, in which case the passenger has the right to a full refund of the funds paid in advance.

As this is only the first ruling passed in such a case, which has not yet become final, as there are still no published other or different decisions of other courts that would be made in similar cases, as the second instance courts have not yet had the opportunity to take a stand on this issue, neither an individual, thus nor a generally accepted legal stand, which would be accepted as unified court practice for same or similar cases, although such a court decision is fully grounded in the legal provisions on which it is based, it remains to be seen for some more time to be able to draw a conclusion on the common position of the court practice taken on this issue.

By Jelena Milinovic, Partner, JPM Jankovic Popovic Mitic

As of 12 October 2020, the Register of Healthcare Institutions is kept at the Business Registers Agency of the Republic of Serbia (“SBRA”), in accordance with the new Health Care Act, which entered into force on 11 April 2019. This means that health care institutions have the obligation to register in the Register of Health Care Institutions, which is kept at the SBRA as of today. In addition to this register, SBRA will keep a single record of entities in health care, which will contain consolidated data on health care institutions and private practice on the territory of the Republic of Serbia.

The new Register of Health Care Institutions will be an electronic, central, public database of health institutions that will be available to everyone on the SBRA portal, which will greatly facilitate access to data of health care institutions regarding business information, internal organization and changes taking place within it.

The procedure of harmonization of health care institutions with the new law will last for three months, starting from 11 October 2020, until 11 January 2021, while entries in the new register in the specified period will be made without paying a fee to the SBRA. If the health institutions do not submit the necessary documentation during the stated period, they will be obliged to pay a fee in the amount of RSD 4.900.

Along with the registration application for harmonization, it is necessary to submit to the SBRA, in the original or a certified copy of the original, the following documentation:

• a valid act on incorporation issued by the founder, whereby the signature of the founder of the privately owned health care institution is verified in accordance with the law;
• a new statute issued by the founder of a privately owned health care institution;
• decision or excerpt from the act of the competent authority which determines the weekly work schedule, as well as the beginning and end of working hours in the health care institution.

Health care institutions, as well as private practices, should have already harmonized their general acts, organization and work with the provisions of the new law, bearing in mind that they were obliged to do so within 12 months from the entry into force of this law, i.e. until 11 April 2020.

Sanctions for health care institutions that have not fulfilled this obligation are not provided, however, those health care institutions will certainly have to harmonize their general acts, organization and work with the provisions of the new Health Care Act.

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 Dragan Martin, Junior Associate, Samardzic, Oreski & Grbovic

Milovan Jocovic has been promoted to Partner at the Stevic Dulic Law Firm in Belgrade.

According to Stevic Dulic, Jocovic specializes in “Corporate law & Corporate Governance, Commercial law, Foreign Investments, Labor Law, Construction law, Real Estate, Public Procurements, Personal Data Protection, Civil law, and Civil Procedure.” 

Jocovic holds an LL.B. from the University of Belgrade. Prior to joining Stevic Dulic in 2013, he spent eight months with ODI Law and ten months with BDK Advokati.

Prica & Partners as Serbian counsel and LMS Studio Legale Milano as Italian counsel have reportedly advised on Serbian merger clearance aspects related to Ferrero’s acquisition of Fox’s Biscuits. Fieldfisher advised CTH Invest, a Belgian holding group associated with Ferrero Group, on the acquisition.

The seller, the 2 Sisters Food Group, announced the deal on October 7, 2020, and reported a sale price of GBP 246 million. The target, Fox’s Biscuits is a British biscuit manufacturer that was founded in West Yorkshire in 1853 and is known for its chocolate-covered biscuit bars such as Crunch Creams and Party Rings. The 2 Sisters Food Group further informed that “the Ferrero-related company will acquire Fox’s biscuit manufacturing sites at Batley and Kirkham, the sites which primarily produce biscuits sold under the Fox’s brand. 2 Sisters will retain the third site at Uttoxeter which produces own-label biscuits for major retailers.”

According to the 2 Sisters Food Group, the formal completion of the sale is expected on 31st October 2020.

Intersport has appointed JPM Partner Ivan Milosevic the company’s Data Protection Officer in Serbia.

According to JPM, “the appointment is a step forward to the strengthening of business cooperation between Intersport and JPM Jankovic Popovic Mitic, aimed at implementing adequate organizational and technical measures in the SEE region in real-time, based on integrated information security risks assessment and assessment of processing activities impact on personal data.”

Serbian Business Registers Agency has established, the Register of healthcare institutions – an electronic, central, public database on registered healthcare institutions that perform healthcare activities.

Serbian Business Registers Agency (SBRA) has established on 12 October 2020, the Register of healthcare institutions – electronic, central, public database on registered healthcare institutions that perform healthcare activities on the basis of a decree of a healthcare or pharmaceutical inspector on the fulfillment of the prescribed conditions for performing healthcare activity, which was assigned to its jurisdiction by the Law on Healthcare (“Official Gazette of the RS”, no. 25/2019).

Intersport has appointed JPM Partner Ivan Milosevic the company’s Data Protection Officer in Serbia.

According to JPM, “the appointment is a step forward to the strengthening of business cooperation between Intersport and JPM Jankovic Popovic Mitic, aimed at implementing adequate organizational and technical measures in the SEE region in real-time, based on integrated information security risks assessment and assessment of processing activities impact on personal data.”