Serbia updates
Competition & Antitrust
Contributed by Moravčević Vojnović and Partners in cooperation with SchoenherrCOVID-19: competition commission deadlines during and after state of emergency
- Serbia
- 21 May 2020
The government recently lifted the state of emergency which had been declared due to the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing normal operations to gradually resume. As a result, all deadlines for the Commission for the Protection of Competition and parties to proceedings that ended between 24 March 2020 and 6 May 2020 are now deemed to end on 5 June 2020. This includes the submission of merger notifications, responses to requests for information, decisions and clearances.
Competition authority imposes landmark fine under leniency programme
- Serbia
- 28 November 2019
The Commission for the Protection of Competition has published its first leniency decision in a cartel case, following a report by one of the cartel participants. The leniency programme was introduced in 2009 but had yet to yield results. The leniency decision is therefore a watershed moment in the programme's development and signals an improvement in the commission's anti-cartel enforcement record.
New state aid regime
- Serbia
- 14 November 2019
From 1 January 2020, Serbia will have a new state aid regime under the new Act on State Aid Control. One of the goals of the new act is to harmonise Serbia's state aid legal framework with EU law, which will help to advance the EU accession process and the implementation of Negotiation Chapter 8 – Competition Policy. Until now, market participants have not focused on compliance with the state aid rules, likely due to a lack of awareness and relatively lenient enforcement; this is expected to change under the new act.
Conditional merger clearance triggers abuse of dominance proceedings
- Serbia
- 02 August 2018
The Serbian Competition Authority has initiated ex officio antitrust proceedings against Serbia Broadband – Srpske kablovske mreže doo Belgrade on grounds of suspected abuse of dominance. This is the first case in which the authority has initiated abuse of dominance proceedings based on soft behavioural remedy (ie, the obligation to report prices).
