Živković Samardžić Lawyers recognized by The Legal 500 EMEA 2024
Živković Samardžić is truly delighted to learn about rankings in the Legal 500 Europe, Middle East & Africa 2024 directory. The office has been ranked across a diverse set of practice areas and our lawyers have been recognized as great professionals.
Miloš Milošević, Partner has been recognized as a Leading Individual, while Ivan Ljubisavljević, Partner as a Next Generation Partner, for their Dispute Resolution work.
Dispute Resolution team has also been recognized as consistently handling high-stakes commercial cases before the Serbian and Montenegrin courts, Živković & Samardžić Law Office acts for several domestic investment banks and insurance companies on an ongoing basis. The firm is home to experts in litigation and enforcement work, along with restructuring, reorganisation and insolvency proceedings. The career of Miloš Milošević includes being a civil law appellate chamber judge at the Belgrade District Court, while Ivan Ljubisavljević is a banking and finance litigation specialist. Civil litigation practitioner Tihomir Vlaović provides additional support.
One of the client testimonials are: ‘Expertise and experience make this team stand out by comparison to other firms.’, ‘Miloš Milošević is great for his understanding of banks’ business and aspirations.’
Additionally, Danka Draško has been recognized as a Rising Star for her Employment work, while the Employment team praised for being particularly active in advising on redundancies, reorganizations, union negotiations, employment disputes and executive terminations, to amendments of working conditions and disciplinary procedures
Client impressions were: ‘They are precise, efficient and professional in every way, and they respect tight deadlines.’, ‘Lawyers from this firm are interested in each client individually, knowing in detail the client’s organisation and type of work, as well as its business needs.’
Other ranked practice areas include Commercial, Corporate and M&A and Competition.
Commercial, Corporate and M&A department led by partners Sava Pavlović and Branislav Živković is known as exceptionally knowledgeable and experienced, acting for major commercial, financial and industrial businesses on complex business transactions. According to clients, “This team is truly impressive. They are incredibly focused and experienced, and their approach is remarkably flexible and innovative“, and “Clients highly value the excellent communication between lawyers and clients, as well as the team’s proactive engagement with them”.
The Competition practice is also recognized by the Legal 500, while Živković Samardžić is highlighted as a firm worth watching in the field of Real Estate and Construction practice. This practice is led by Uroš Đorđević, who has longstanding experience in real estate projects and project finance, as well as infrastructure and procurement contracts, however, he is supported by Srđan Zerdo, whose commercial real estate focus covers investment sales and acquisitions, property developments, FIDIC contracts, hotel operation agreements, and property joint ventures.
The Legal 500 is an independent guide, where firms and individuals are recommended purely on merit, considering various factors such as capabilities of the team and the law firm in general, the complexity and the variety of the performed work, with a great emphasis on client feedback.
- Published in Uncategorized
The Schrems II Case and its impact on the personal data transfer between EU and Non-EU countries
Many times we have witnessed the clashes between David and the Goliath on the sports fields. Many times Goliath has won. But sometimes, David wins and those wins – those victories are always remembered.
Something similar has happened in law, in an area that has become especially important in recent years, an area related to personal data that is slowly becoming the most valuable currency in modern business.
The year is 2020, and the place of battle is ECHR, Maximillian Schrems as David and Facebook Ireland as Goliath. The result is II – 0 in favour of our David while the repercussion of the victory is the Schrems II Guidance issued by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) on the 28th of June 2021.
Before the Shrems II, for the transfer of personal data from the EU to the US, it was enough to comply with the requirements stated by the EU-US Privacy Shield, ie to apply the standard contractual clauses (SCCs) approved by the EDPB. Now, it is not enough.
But what is? That is the question that will give us a headache in the future while the answer will have to be fined on a case-by-case basis. Not only for the export of personal data to the States but also to all Non-EU countries that do not have a confirmed adequacy status for their level of personal data protection.
For the export to the Non-EU, the comprehensive due diligence of the legislation in question will be required which should give us an answer to the one question – whether this country has an equivalent level of personal data protection. The answer to this question will determine whether such exports are lawful or not or whether is it necessary to implement an additional security mechanism for such exports to be lawful.
The rise of remote work as a result of a pandemic caused by the COVID-19 virus and cloud computing complicates an already complicated situation even more.
In March 2022, The European Commission and the United States announce that they have agreed in principle on a new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework, which will foster trans-Atlantic data flows and address the concerns raised by the Schrems II decision.
In connection to this, if you have concerns about this subject, please contact our attorney Ivan Ljubisavljevic at ivan.ljubisavljevic@zslaw.rs or your regular contact at Zivkovic Samardzic Law Office.
Schrems II Case i njegov uticaj na razmenu podata o ličnosti između EU i Non EU zemalja
Mnogo puta smo na sportskim terenima gledali okršaje Davida i Golijata. Mnogo puta Golijat je pobeđivao. Samo ponekad, desi se da David pobedi – te pobede uvek se posebno pamte.
Nešto slično desilo se i u pravu, u oblasti koja poslednjih godina posebno dobija na značaju, oblasti koja se odnosi na podatke o ličnosti koji polako postaju najvrednija valuta savremenog poslovanja.
Godina je 2020, mesto okršaja ECHR, Maximillian Schrems u ulozi David a Facebook Ireland u ulozi Golijata. Rezultat je II – 0 za Davida a posledica pobede je Schrems II Guidance izdata od strane Evropskog odbora za zaštitu podataka (EDPB) dana 28.06.2021. godine.
U najkraćem, pre Shrems II, za prenos podataka o ličnosti iz EU u US bilo je dovoljno ispoštovati zahteve propisane EU–US Privacy Shield-om, odnosno primeniti standardne ugovorne klauzule koje je odobrio EDPB. Sada to nije. Šta jeste, pitanje je koje će ubuduće mučiti mnoge a odgovora će se davati od slučaja do slučaja. I to ne samo za izvoz podataka o ličnost u US već i u sve Non EU zemlje koje nisu na listi zemalja koje garantuju primereni nivo zaštite podataka o ličnost.
Za ove Non EU zemlje biće potrebno sprovesti sveobuhvatan due diligence koji bi trebao da dá odgovor na jedno pitanje – da li zemlja u koju će se uvoziti podaci o ličnosti garantuje primereni nivo zaštite podataka o ličnost. Od odgovora na ovo pitanje zavisiće da li je takav izvoz uopšte dozvoljen, odnosno da li je neophodno implementirati dodatne bezbednosne mere kako bi takav izvoz bio dozvoljen.
Rad od kuće kao posledica pandemije izazvane virusom COVID-19 i cloud computing dodatno otežavaju već dovoljno komplikovanu situaciju.
U martu 2022. godine započeti su pregovori između Evropskog odbora za zaštitu podataka i US u cilju pripreme Privacy Shield II a za očekivati je da će do kraja godine izaći sa novim Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework-om.
Ako imate pitanja u vezi sa ovom temom, pratite naše objave i/ili kontaktirajte adv Ivana Ljubisavljevića ivan.ljubisavljevic@zslaw.rs ili Vašu osobu za redovan kontakt u advokatskoj kancelariji Živković Samardžić.
- Published in Client Updates
Živković Samardžić Lawyers and Practice Groups Recognized by Legal 500 EMEA 2022
Živković Samardžić is humbled and proud of our rankings in the Legal 500 Europe, Middle East & Africa 2022 directory. The firm has been ranked across diverse set of practice areas and our partners recognized as professional and well organised lawyers with extensive knowledge and analytical skills.
Miloš Milošević, Partner has been recognized as a Leading Individual, and Ivan Ljubisavljević, Partner as a Next Generation Partner, for their Dispute Resolution work. Živković & Samardzić Law Office’s lawyers “regularly represents domestic and foreign clients from the banking, media, telecoms and pharma sectors. In addition to its track record in heavyweight commercial disputes before the Serbian and Montenegrin courts, the group appears in investment treaty arbitration.” Some of the client testimonials include following: “An excellent team that is made up of highly skilled individuals.”, with “Each lawyer is a highly professional individual with exceptional knowledge of the law and extensive experience.”, stating that “They are skilled in analysing legal issues in a short time, and provide the client with adequate professional advice and assistance.”
Ana Popović, Partner has been recognized as a Next Generation Partner for her Employment work and her team praised for being particularly active in advising on redundancies, management reorganisations, union negotiations, employment dispute resolution and executive terminations. The team also has expertise in the documenting of work condition amendments, disciplinary procedures, and assisting foreign management with immigration law matters. The Legal 500 directory quotes some of the client testimonials, according to which “I enjoy working with this firm – this is a complex jurisdiction and they are pragmatic and commercial with their advice.”, “The employment practice of this firm is outstanding. It is very well staffed, with experts who go the extra mile to provide sound and reliable advice.”, with“Great collaboration, client relations and response speeds.”
Other ranked practice areas include Commercial, Corporate and M&A, Competition and Real Estate and Construction.
Commercial, Corporate and M&A team is described as the one that consistently handles complex business transactions, as well as providing strategic corporate advice to both national and international commercial, financial and industrial enterprises in Serbia. Jointly heading up the group are Partners Branislav Živković, who is cross-border transactions expert, TMT deal expert Nebojša Samardžić, and Igor Živkovski, “a great lawyer with brilliant ideas”. According to some of the quoted client testimonials, the team “is very practical, and understands how to get things done quickly and easily without compromising on risk”, with “dedicated, knowledgeable and experienced professionals, who give very direct and useful advice, which is very much appreciated.” Their clients also “appreciate their deep knowledge of the local market and breadth of experience.”
Živković Samardžić Competition practice is described as “full of innovative and creative staff, who are very professional and available”, with team members “who are able to respond promptly to every client requirement”. The competition team has substantial experience of handling local Serbian and regional filing procedures for complex, multi-jurisdictional mergers in the electronic communications, broadcasting, energy and financial services sectors. Directory quotes client testimonials as follows: “When working on a project, the team always includes both partners and associates, which allows the associates to grow through handling large mandates and gain knowledge and experience for the future.”, as well as “Their understanding of the market is a great advantage.” Practice head, Slobodan Kremenjak, Partner is lauded for having “the track record which includes a number of landmark competition cases.”
The Legal 500 Series, now in its 33rd year, is widely acknowledged as the world’s largest legal referral guide. The Legal 500 is an independent guide, where firms and individuals are recommended purely on merit, considering various factors such as capabilities of the team and the law firm in general, the complexity and the variety of the performed work, with a great emphasis on client feedback.
- Published in Uncategorized
TOPIC: CLOSING A COMPANY IN LIQUIDATION PROCEDURE THROUGH BANKRUPTCY
It’s not uncommon in practice for a company in liquidation procedure not to carry out the procedure until its completion, but over time to find itself in a situation where its accounts are blocked and there are no assets to settle creditors depts. Bearing in mind that the nature of debts is only to increase over time, such companies often become „paralyzed “, which is caused by the most common bankruptcy reasons:
• permanent insolvency,
• over-indebtedness.
If a situation like this occurs, the possibility of closing the company through bankruptcy procedure opens up. The main advantage of this procedure is efficiency and achieving the desired goal in a short period of time.
An important fact that needs to be proven during this procedure is that the obligations of the company are larger than its assets, which prevents the company from fulfilling the existing obligations towards creditors.
As this is a procedure which successful completion requires the cooperation of different professions, it is useful to hire a lawyer in order to successfully finish the procedure by closing the company and deleting it from the Business Registers Agency. The consequence of all the above mentioned is that the company is released from its obligations to creditors.
Under what conditions is possible for the procedure to end in bankruptcy at the first creditors hearing, whether the founder of the company can influence the course of the procedure, how many claims are needed for the procedure not to be suspended, what are the consequences if it is determined that the company in the period before the opening of bankruptcy made dispositions that could have damaged the creditors, are all the questions to which our office with extensive experience in this area can give you an answer.
For all additional information, feel free to contact our partners from the litigation department Miloš V. Milošević, via e-mail address milos.milosevic@zslaw.rs and Ivan Ljubisavljević, via e-mail address ivan.ljubisavljevic@zslaw.rs, or via our regular contact address office@zslaw.rs.
TEMA: GAŠENJE FIRME U LIKVIDACIJI KROZ STEČAJ
Neretka je situacija u praksi da privredno društvo koje se nalazi u postupku likvidacije ne sprovede postupak do njegovog okončanja, već se protekom određenog vremena nađe u situaciji da su mu računi blokirani, a društvo nema imovine kojom bi izmirilo dugovanja prema poveriocima. Imajući u vidu da je priroda dugovanja takva da se dugovanja protekom vremena isključivo uvećavaju, ovakva društva neretko dolaze u status tzv. „paralize“ prouzrokovane najčešćim stečajnim razlozima i to:
• trajnijom nesposobnošću plaćanja;
• prezaduženošću.
Ukoliko dođe do ovakve situacije, otvara se mogućnost gašenja firme bankrotstvom kroz stečajni postupak. Glavna prednost ovog postupka je efikasnost i postizanje željenog cilja u kratkom vremenskom periodu.
Bitna činjenica koju je potrebno dokazati tokom stečajnog postupka jeste da li je pasiva društva, odnosno njegove obaveze, veća od aktive društva, odnosno njegove imovine. Ukoliko je pasiva društva veća od njegove aktive, društvo je onemogućeno da izvrši postojeće obaveze prema poveriocima.
Kako se radi o postupku za čije uspešno okončanje je potrebno učešće lica iz različitih struka, korisno je angažovati advokata kako bi se postupak uspešno okončao gašenjem firme i brisanjem iz Registra privrednih subjekata koji se vodi u Agenciji za privredne registre Republike Srbije. Posledica svega navedenog je da društvo biva oslobođeno obaveza koje ima prema poveriocima.
Pod kojim uslovima je moguće da se već na prvom poverilačkom ročištu postupak okonča bankrotstvom, da li osnivač društva može da utiče na tok postupka, koliko je prijava potraživanja potrebno da se postupak ne bi obustavio, koje su posledice ako se utvrdi da je društvo u periodu pre otvaranja stečaja vršilo raspolaganja koja su mogla oštetiti poverioce, sve su pitanja na koja Vam naša kancelarija sa velikim iskustvom u ovoj oblasti može dati odgovor.
Za sve dodatne informacije možete se obratiti našim partnerima iz litigation odeljenja Milošu V. Miloševiću, putem e-mail adrese milos.milosevic@zslaw.rs, Ivanu Ljubisavljeviću putem e-mail adrese ivan.ljubisavljevic@zslaw.rs, ili na adresu za redovan kontakt office@zslaw.rs.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
- Published in Client Updates
Personal data protection – stance and opinions of the Commissioner
In organization of Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection has been celebrated the Day of Personal Data Protection. This Day was introduced in Serbia 10 years ago. This year it also marks the 40th anniversary of the opening for signature of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data. After the entry into force of the new Law on Personal Data Protection, the obligation to harmonize with the provisions of the Law arose. The adopted Law opened numerous questions and doubts in practice, so the Data controllers and Data processors mostly relied on the previous guidelines and opinions of the Commissioner. However, now the publication of the Commissioner publikacija Poverenika broj VI „Zaštita podataka o ličnosti: Stavovi i mišljenja Poverenika“ is presented, which contains the opinions of the Commissioner regarding the most common dilemmas in the application of the Law, such as: when the Law is applied, what is personal data, respect for principles, who are the controllers and who are the processors, who can be data protection officer, the rights of data subjects, data processing of minors, obligations regarding the video surveillance, data transmission, protection of personal data in the labor law, processing of special personal data, etc. In 2020, with the challenges brought by the pandemic, the importance of personal data protection is especially visible, so that the Publication, among other things, contains certain views when it comes to preventing the spread of the infectious disease Covid-19. If you need additional information regarding the protection of personal data, feel free to contact Ana Popović by e-mail ana.popovic@zslaw.rs, Ivan Ljubisavljević by e-mail ivan.ljubisavljevic@zslaw.rs or Milica Cicmil by e-mail milica.cicmil@zslaw.rs
Zaštita podataka o ličnosti – stavovi i mišljenja Poverenika
U organizaciji Poverenika za informacije od javnog značaja i zaštitu podataka o ličnosti je obeležen Dan zaštite podataka o ličnosti, a koji je prvi put obeležen u Srbiji pre 10 godina. Ove godine se proslavlja i 40 godina od kada je otvorena za potpis Konvencija o zaštiti lica u odnosu na automatsku obradu podataka o ličnosti. Nakon stupanja na snagu novog Zakona o zaštiti podataka o ličnosti nastala je obaveza usklađivanja sa odredbama Zakona. Usvojeni Zakon je otvorio brojna pitanja i nedoumice u praksi, tako da su se rukovaoci i obrađivači pretežno oslanjali na ranije smernice i mišljenja Poverenika. Međutim, sada je predstavljena publikacija Poverenika broj VI „Zaštita podataka o ličnosti: Stavovi i mišljenja Poverenika“, koja sadrži mišljenja Poverenika u vezi sa najčešćim dilemama u primeni Zakona, kao što su: kada se Zakon primenjuje, šta su podaci o ličnosti, poštovanje načela, ko su rukovaoci, a ko obrađivači, ko može biti lice za zaštitu podataka o ličnosti, prava lica na koje se podaci odnose, obrada podataka maloletnih lica, obaveze kod uvođenja video-nadzora, prenos podataka, zaštita podataka o ličnosti u radnom pravu, obrada posebnih podataka o ličnosti itd. U 2020. godini sa izazovima koje je donela pandemija, posebno je vidljiv značaj zaštite podataka o ličnosti, tako da Publikacija, između ostalog, sadrži određene stavove i kada je u pitanju sprečavanje širenje zarazne bolesti Covid-19. Ukoliko Vam je potrebna dodatna informacija u vezi sa zaštitom podataka o ličnosti, kontaktirajte Anu Popović na mejl ana.popovic@zslaw.rs, Ivana Ljubisavljevića na mejl ivan.ljubisavljevic@zslaw.rs ili Milicu Cicmil na mejl milica.cicmil@zslaw.rs
- Published in Publications
Insurance-based investment products – review of some legal issues
Since enactment of the new Insurance Law in 2015, insurance undertakings in Serbia are provided with opportunity to offer to their clients insurance products where sum of insurance is wholly or partially exposed to market fluctuations and policyholders assumes investment risk. Such products – sometimes referred to as „unit-linked insurance products“, are collectively known as „insurance based investment products“ under IDD and PRIIPS regulation on the EU level.
Although this is well known and highly sought after product on developed insurance markets of the EU, IBIPs have not yet achieved significant presence on the Serbian insurance market. Considering that this is a relatively new type of insurance on Serbian insurance market, our associate Nikola Filipović provided review of some key legal issues regarding insurance based investment products in his paper for „Tokovi Osiguranja“ academic journal.
The paper points out key differences between investment based and traditional life insurance. The key difference rises from right of the policyholder to choose investment funds, where the premium will be invested, which at the same time shifts investment risk to the policyholder. This is contrary to the traditional life insurance where investment risk is borne by the insurance undertaking. Following analysis of the position of the ECJ on legal qualification of such contracts (as insurance contracts), the paper points out different conduct recruitment that applied for distribution of investment products under MiFID regime and insurance products linked to investment product under IMD/Third Life Insurance Directive regime, concluding that such differences were one of the key impetuous behind reform of the conduct rules and adoption of the IDD.
Paper is available at:
For any questions or additional information on insurance – related matters, contact Nikola Filipović, nikola.filipovic@zslaw.rs , Ivan Ljubisavljević, ivan.ljubisavljevic@zslaw.rs or your regular contacts at the office.
Investicioni proizvodi osiguranja – osvrt na neka pravna pitanja
Od stupanja na snagu Zakona o osiguranju 2015. osiguravajuća društva u Srbiji imaju mogućnost da svojim klijentima ponude osigranja života u kojima vrednost osigurane sume stoji u direktnoj vezi sa vrednošću jedinice investicionog fonda u koje su, po izboru ugovarača osiguranja investirana premija. U pitanju su osiguranja koja se u praksi nazivaju nekada nazivaju „unit-linked“ osiguranja (i ako je „unit linked“ samo jedna od vrsta investicionih proizvoda osiguranja), a koja su na nivou EU su kolektivno definisana kao investicioni proizvodi osiguranja odnosno „insurance based investment products“ prema Direktivi 2016/97 (Direktiva o distribuciji osiguranja) i Uredbi 1268/2014 (Uredba o dokumentima sa ključnim informacijama za maloprodajne investicione proizvode i investicione proizvode osiugranja).
I ako je u pitanju dobro poznata (i veoma tražena) vrsta osiguranja na razvijenim tržištima EU, ovakva vrsta osiguranja još uvek nije široko rasprostranjena na tržištu Srbije. Budući da je u pitanju relativno nova vrsta osiguranja, naš saradnik Nikola Filipović, ukazao je na neke ključne pravne probleme koji se mogu javiti u vezi sa investicionim proizvodima osiguranja u stručnom radu za naučno-istraživački časopis „Tokovi Osiugranja“.
Na prvom mestu, ukazuje se na razlike između investicionih proizvoda osiguranja i tradicionalnih životnih osiguranja. Naime osnovna razlika proističe upravo iz prava koje ugovarač ove vrste osiguranja ima (da izabere fondove u koje želi da se investiraju sredstva od premije), usled čega ugovarač osiguranja preuzima na sebe investicioni rizik. Nasuprot ovome u tradicionalnim životnim osiguranjima ovaj rizik snosi osiguravajuće društvo. Kako je ESP zauzeo stav da su ovakvi ugovori (i ako hibridni, tj. delom osiguranje a delom investiciona usluga) po svojoj pravnoj prirodi ipak jesu ugovori o osiguranju, došlo je do neobične situacije u kojoj su se na suštinski iste finansijske proizvode primenjuje različiti regulatorno-pravni režim u zavisnosti od njihove formalne kvalifikacije. Upravo su razlike između pravnog režima predviđenog za finansijske usluge (MiFID) i režima predviđenog za usluge osiguranja (IMD i Treća Direktiva Životnog osiguranja) bile jedan od osnovnih razloga za sveobuhvatnu reformu pravila tržišnog ponašanja u sektoru osiguranja i usvajanje Direktive o distribuciji osiguranja.
Ukoliko imate bilo kakvih pitanja ili su Vam potrebne dodatne informacije možete se obratiti Nikoli Filipoviću, nikola.filipovic@zslaw.rs , Ivanu Ljubisavljeviću, ivan.ljubisavljevic@zslaw.rs ili Vašem redovnom kontaktu u kancelariji.
- Published in Insights
Market Conduct Regulation in Serbian Insurance Sector
What is market conduct regulation?

Market conduct is second pillar of ongoing regulatory reform in the EU insurance law. While the “macro-economic” quantitative and qualitative prudential requirements are addressed through the rules established by the Solvency II directive, the “micro-economic” conduct risks are addressed through rules established by the Insurance Distribution Directive.
Market conduct regulation provides supervisors with tools to assess behavior of the insurance distributors (insurance companies and intermediaries) in order to tackle consumer detriment at an early stage, rather than only react following the emergence of problems.
For insurance distributors, market conduct regulation imposes completely new and extensive “customer facing” obligations (fair treatment of the customer, acting in accordance with the client’s best interest, assessing demands and needs of the customer, pre-contractual information duties, maintaining and operating effective Product Oversight and Governance policies and procedures etc.)
Market conduct requirements in Serbian Insurance Regulation
Current Serbian Insurance Law imposes three key conduct requirements:
- Provide policyholder with pre contractual information mandated by the Articles 82-84 of the Insurance Law;
- Maintaining effective mechanisms ensure the protection of rights and interests of the insured, policyholders, insurance beneficiaries and injured parties, (as determined by the Decision on the NBS on Manner of Protecting the Rights and Interests of Insurance Service Consumers);
- Pursuing activities in accordance with law, general acts, business policies, rules of the insurance and actuarial profession, good business practices and business ethics, (which includes adopted codes of professional ethics, codes of conduct and recommendation and guidelines adopted by the Supervisor);
The Guidelines of the National Bank on minimal standards of conduct and good practice of insurance market participants – Implementation of the IDD in Serbia
The Guidelines on minimal standards of conduct and good practice of insurance market participants introduce basic concepts from the IDD. In accordance with its international obligations, Serbia will be required to implement insurance acquis including the IDD, however publication of the Guidelines by the National Banks of Serbia seems to have caught many insurance undertakings somewhat by surprise. Through adoption and publication of the Guidelines National Bank of Serbia clearly pointed out that market conduct will be one of the focuses of the supervisor in the future, and stated its expectations (what constitutes good business practice) from the market participants.
Key market conduct changes introduced by the Guideline
- Knowledge and expertise – essentially this is introduction of the continuous professional training requirements from the IDD. Once IDD is fully implemented all distributors (including employees of the insurance companies) will have to attend minimum of 15 hours per year of the professional training;
- General principles of market conduct – distributors should conduct fairly, professionally and in the best interest of customers, these open norms can be used to assess wide both conduct as well as internal processes and policies of the insurance distributors;
- Enhanced information duties – product information document design, clear distinction between general and specific terms and conditions and pre-contractual information documents;
- Marketing of insurance products – prohibition of use of incorrect or misleading promises, misrepresentation and concealment of information, usage of professional terms etc.
- Product oversight and governance – perhaps the most complex and far-reaching of all requirements introduced. Insurance manufacturers are required to operate and maintain effective product oversight and government policies and arrangements which include identification of the target market, testing of insurance products and review of the products;
- Focus on distribution strategies and choice of distribution channels – insurance companies will have to apply certain level of diligence when choosing distribution channel and assess whether the distributors act in accordance with the product oversight and governance policy of the manufacturer, in particular whether the product is distributed to the identified target market;
- Conflict of interest rules – assessment of policies and inducements schemes both internally for employees, and externally when distributing through indirect channels;
Which departments within the insurance companies are affected?
Without doubt the new rules will have the most serious impact on compliance departments. Broad nature of the conduct rules requires from compliance departments not just to be on the outside of the business development process, but essential element in the decision making process, in particular given regulatory focus on the design and development of the new products, before they are offered on the market (identification of the target market, choice of distribution strategy etc.)
However, compliance departments are not the only one affected, and other departments should be aware, that the broad nature of the conduct rules affects them as well. HR departments should be involved regarding training and competences of the employees, risk management given the fact that conduct rules represent legal risks that need to be properly managed, product development, marketing and sale for obvious reasons, but also ultimately the managing board due to potential financial fines and significant reputational risks associated with misconduct and mis-selling.
Proper management of the new legal risks – how to adjust to the changes in market conduct rules?
Insurance companies (because they will be most significantly affected by the changes), but also other distributors who are in scope of the new rules, should begin the evaluation process of their internal policies and procedures (gap analysis) in order to assess which conduct rules will most significantly affect their daily operations, and to provide their in house lawyers and compliance departments with support and adequate information in order to better comprehend the new conduct regime.
This is particularly important given soft law nature of the Guidelines. It allows insurance companies to identify legal requirements which could be hardly attainable, overly burdensome or with little effect on overall level of consumer protection and clearly communicate issues to the state and the supervisor, before rules become “hard law”.
Scope of application – who is affected by the market conduct rules?
Insurance companies, insurance agents and brokers, banks and financial leasing companies. In a brief, if you are part of the insurance distribution chain, it is very likely you will be affected by the market conduct rules.
For any additional questions regarding this topic, please follow our announcements and/or contact Nikola Filipović, nikola.filipovic@zslaw.rs, Ivan Ljubisavljevic, ivan.ljubisavljevic@zslaw.rs, or your regular contact at the Zivkovic Samardzic law office.
Pravila tržišnog ponašanja u srpskom pravu osiguranja
Šta su pravila tržišnog ponašanja?
Pravila tržišnog ponašanja su jedan od dva pravca reforme evropskog prava osiguranja. Dok Direktiva Solventnost II reguliše makro-ekonomska pitanja, kvalitativne i kvantitativne zahteve u vezi sa bonitetom osiguravajućeg društva, Direktiva o distribuciji osiguranja je usmerena na „mikro-ekonomska“ pitanja i rizike koji se javljaju kao posledica odnosa osiguravajućeg društva prema ugovaračima osiguranja (tržišno ponašanjе).
Pravila tržišnog ponašanja daju nadzornom organu mogućnost da ispita ponašanje osiguravajućeg društva (i drugih distributera osiguranja), odnosno njihov odnos prema klijentima, sa ciljem da preventivno deluje i spreči nastanak neželjenih situacija u kojima korisnici osiguranja mogu biti oštećeni, umesto da samo reaguje na neželjene sitaucije nakon što se dogode.
Za distributere osiguranja, pravila tržišnog ponašanja nameću poptuno nove, opsežne i sveobuhvatne obaveze u njihovom kontaktu i odnosu sa ugovaračima osiguranja i osiguranicima (fer pošten i transparentan odnos prema klijentima, postupanje u skladu sa najboljim interesima klijenta, procena zahteva i potreba klijenta, informisanje klijenata pre zaključenja ugovora) ali isto tako i nove organizacione zahteve (usvajanje i sprovođenje efikasne politike nadzora i upravljanja prozvodima).
Pravila tržišnog ponašanja u Zakonu o Osiguranju
Zakon o osiguranju propisuje tri ključne obaveze koje potpadaju pod pravila tržišnog ponašanja:
- Članovi 82-84 Zakona o osiguranju propisuju obavezu predugovornog informisanja ugovarača osiguranja;
- Član 15 Zakona o osiguranju propisuje obavezu obezbeđenja zaštite prava i interesa osiguranika, ugovarača osiguranja, korisnika osiguranja i trećih oštećenih lica, (ove obaveze detaljnije su propisane Odlukom NBS o načinu zaštite prava i interesa korisnika usluge osiguranja);
- Član 19 Zakona o osiguranju propisuje obavezu obavljanja delatnosti u skladu sa zakonom, opštim aktima, aktima poslovne politike, pravilima struke osiguranja i aktuarske struke, dobrim poslovnim običajima i poslovnom etikom, (što obuhvata usvojene kodekse profesionalne etike, kodekse i pravilnike ponašanja kao i preporuke i smernice usvojene od strane nadzornog organa);
Smernica Narodne Banke Srbije o minimalnim standardima ponašanja i dobroj poslovnoj praksi učesnika na tržištu osiguranja – prvi korak ka implementaciji Direktive o distribuciji osiguranja u Srbiji
Smernica Narodne Banke Srbije o minimalnim standardima ponašanja i dobroj poslovnoj praksi učesnika na tržištu osiguranja uvodi po prvi put u pravni život osnovne koncepte i pojmove iz Direktive o distribuciji osiguranja. U skladu sa međunarodno preuzetim obavezama, Srbija ima obavezu da uskladi svoje propise sa direktivama EU iz oblasti prava osiguranja, uključujući i Direktivu o distribuciji osiguranja, međutim čini se da je objavljivanje smernica od strane NBS zateklo mnoga osiguravajuća društva nespremnim. Kroz usvajanje i objavljivanje Smernica Narodna Banka Srbije je jasno stavila do znanja da će pravila tržišnog ponašanja biti jedan od fokusa nadzora u narednom periodu, i definisala svoje viđenje dobrih poslovnih praksi na tržištu osiguranja.
Ključne promene koje Smernica donosi:
- Znanje i stručnost – suštinski ovo je prvi korak u uvođenju obaveze kontinuiranog profesionalnog usavršavanja za zaposlene u osiguravajućim društvima. Direktiva predviđa obavezu, najmanje 15 sati godišnje kontinurane obuke za sve distributere (uključujući i zaposlene u osiguravajućim društvima);
- Opšti principi tržišnog ponašanja – od distributere sa zahteva fer i pošteno poslovanje u najboljem interesu korisnika. Ove opšte norme mogu služiti kao osnova za procenu kako neposrednog odnosa prema korisnicma, tako i za ocenu internih procesa i politika distributera osiguranja;
- Predugovorno informisanje – predlog dokumenta predugovornog informisanja, povlačenje jasne razlike između opštih i posebnih uslova osiguranja i obaveze predugovornog informisanja;
- Oglašavanje – zabrana upotrebe netačnih obećanja ili informacija koje dovode u zabludu, pogrešnog predstavljanja informacija ili prikrivanja informacija, upotrebe profesionalnih izraza itd.;
- Nadzor i upravljanje proizvodima osiguranja – verovatno najkompleksniji i najdalekosežniji od svih zahteva. Proizvođači osiguranja (a to su osiguravajuća društva i pod određenim uslovima posrednici osiguranja) imaju obavezu da uvedu i sprovode efikasnu politiku nadzora i upravljanja proizvodima osiguranja, što uključuje pitanja identifikacije ciljnog tržišta, testiranje proizvoda osiguranja kao i postupake korigovanja;
- Regulatorni fokus na distributivne strategije i izbor kanala prodaje – osiguravajuća društva moraju pažljivo odabrati prikladni distributivni kanal i analizirati da li distributeri koje su odabrali postupaju u skladu sa politikom nadzora i upravljanja proizvodima, naročito da li se proizvod plasira identifikovanom ciljnom tržištu;
- Pravila o sukobu interesa – obuhvataju kako direktnu tako i indirektnu prodaju. Od osiguravajućih društava se očekuje da procene kako interni (za zaposlene) tako i eksterni (za distributere) programi stimulacije i naknade mogu uticati na interese klijenata;
Na koja odeljenja u okviru osiguravajućeg društva će nova pravila najviše uticati?
Bez sumnje, nova pravila tržišnog ponašanja najviše će opteretiti (već veoma opterećena) odeljenja za usklađenost poslovanja. Priroda pravila tržišnog ponašanja takođe znači da odeljenja za usklađenost poslovanja više ne mogu biti na marginama poslovnog procesa, već da se moraju transformisati u jedan od ključnih faktora prilikom donošenja poslovnih odluka, naročito imajući u vidu novi regulatorni fokus na dizajn osiguranja pre nego što se proizvod uopšte ponudi osiguranicima na tržištu.
Međutim neće se samo odeljenja za usklađenost poslovanja pred izazovom. U proces usklađivanja trebala bi biti uključena i HR odeljenja, usled zahteva usmerenih na razvoj kompetencija i obuku zaposlenih, sektor za upravljanje rizikom usled činjenica da pravila tržišnog ponašanja predstavljaju nove pravne rizike koji zahtevaju kvalitativnu ocenu, sektori prodaje, marketinga i razvoj proizvoda iz očiglednih razloga, ali isto tako i izvršni odbor u krajnjoj instanci zbog potencijalnih finansijskih sankcija i reputacionih posledica koje mogu nastati usled nepoštovanja pravila tržišnog ponašanja.
Upravljanje novim pravnim rizicima – kako se prilagoditi izmenama u pravnom okviru?
Osiguravajuća društva (zato što nova pravila najviše utiču na njih), ali isto tako i drugi distributeri, trebali bi da se upuste u procenu svojih internih politika i procedura (gep analiza) kako bi ocenili koja će pravila tržišnog ponašanja najviše uticati na njihovu svakodnevnu delatnost i poslovanje (zavisno od portfolia, distributivnih kanala, prodajne mreže, već usvojenih politika i internih akata), kao i da svojim pravnicima i odeljenjima za usklađenost pruže podršku kroz adekvatne informacije i obuke o novim pravilima, u skladu sa strateškim (forward-looking) pristupom i evolucijom uloge sektora usklađenosti u poslovnim procesima.
Ovo je naročito važno imajući u vidu pravnu prirodu Smernica. Osiguravajuća društva imaju priliku da identifikuju obaveze koje se teško mogu sprovesti u praksi ili jednostavno premalo doprinose nivou zaštite ugovarača osiguranja i osiguranika, da zauzmu stav po pitanju onih obaveza koje mogu biti suviše veliko opterećenje za indsutriju osiguranja pre nego što takve obaveze postanu deo zakona.
Domašaj primene novih pravila – na koga se odnose nova pravila tržišnog ponašanja?
Nova pravila tržišnog ponašanja odnose se na osiguravajuća društva, zastupnike i posrednike osiguranja, banke, davaoce finansijskog lizinga. Ukratko rečeno, ukoliko je subjekat deo lanca distribucije osiguranja, deo ili većina novih pravila tržišnog ponašanja će se primenjivati i uticati na poslovanje.
Za sva dodatna pitanja u vezi sa ovom temom, pratite naše objave, i/ili kontaktirajte Nikolu Filipovića, nikola.filipovic@zslaw.rs, Ivana Ljubisavljevića, ivan.ljubisavljevic@zslaw.rs ili vaš redovan kontakt u Advokatskoj Kancelariji Živković Samardžić.
- Published in Insights
Živković Samardžić lawyers and practice groups recognized by Legal500 EMEA 2020 legal directory

Živkovic Samardžić is humbled and proud of our rankings in the Legal 500 Europe, Middle East & Africa 2020 directory. The firm has been ranked across diverse set of practice areas and our partners recognized as professional and well organised lawyers with extensive knowledge and analytical skills.
Miloš Milošević, Partner has been recognized as a Leading Individual, and Ivan Ljubisavljević as a Rising Star, for their Dispute resolution work. Both are praised by clients as “co-operative and excellent lawyers.” Their team is commended for handling complex and high- value commercial cases and investment treaty arbitrations.
Ana Popović, Partner has been recognized as a Next Generation Partner for her Employment work and her team praised for its broad experience in handling redundancy, reorganisation management, union negotiations, employment dispute resolution, executive terminations, and for being capable to help clients achieve compliance commercially. Legal 500 directory quotes some of the client testimonials, according to which Ana “demonstrates impressive knowledge as well as the ability to negotiate the client’s best interest during delicate relations with employees.”
Other ranked practice areas include Commercial, Corporate and M&A and Competition.
Commercial, Corporate and M&A team is described as the one that advises frequently on complex business transactions, and experienced in M&A, joint ventures and privatisations. According to some of the quoted client testimonials, the team, led by Partners Branislav Živković, Nebojša Samardžić and Igor Živkovski “is highly professional, responsive and understands business”, with “creativity and experience, combined with prompt response times” as key qualities. Igor Živkovski, Partner is lauded for being “an exceptionally talented lawyer and someone that clients can always rely on”, “extremely professional, always available” and as “always very pragmatic and goal oriented.”
Živković Samardžić Competition team is described as a team “known for abuse of dominance and cartel proceedings and investigations,” with “particular strengths in regulated industries, such as electronic communications, broadcasting, energy and financial services”. Directory quotes client testimonials praising the team for being “highly professional” with reputation “based on an acknowledged technical excellence and ability to provide commercial and practical advice and an in-depth understanding of markets and regulatory regimes.” Practice head, Slobodan Kremenjak, Partner is lauded for being “creative and insightful.”
Humbled and immensely grateful to our clients for the feedback provided to Legal 500 researchers, Živković Samardžić will continue to strive for excellence as client’s trusted Partners in Law.
- Published in Uncategorized
Živković Samardžić advises Halkbank a.d. Beograd on privacy compliance and records management issues
Živković Samardžić, one of Serbia’s leading full-service independent law firms, has advised HALKBANK a.d. Beograd, subsidiary of Turkish HALKBANK, sixth largest bank in Turkey in terms of assets, on harmonization of their operations with the new Law on Personal Data Protection, which included review of relevant internal documents and policies, as well as the drafting of the new ones, where it was necessary.
Živković Samardžić team that has been working on the assignment closely alongside the HALKBANK a.d. Beograd team, was led by Ana Popović, Partner, Ivan Ljubisavljević, Senior Associate, and Milica Cicmil, Associate.
The privacy compliance was a prevalent business concern in Serbia this summer, due to the fact that the implementation of the new Law on Personal Data Protection, adopted last November and modelled after the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), has commenced as of August 21th, 2019. Should your company need more information on how to manage data, develop document retention strategies and achieve privacy compliance, contact Ivan Ljubisavljević, Živković Samardžić Senior Associate, or any of your regular contacts at Živković Samardžić.
- Published in Deals and Cases
Shift in case-law related to appropriation of encumbered real property
[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]The 2005 Serbian Law on Hypothec (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 60/2005), introduced the possibility of out-of-court collection and in particular the so-called ‘subsequent agreements’, allowing appropriation of encumbered real property instead of satisfaction of secured claim (Article 27 of the Law on Hypothec), but had its flaws that were severely exposed by the case law.
Subsequent agreement is an agreement entered into between the hypothecary creditor and the owner of the encumbered real property, that may provide for the appropriation of encumbered real property by the hypothecary creditor instead of satisfaction of secured claim. Such agreement, reads the law, is allowed once the secured claim matures and should be assembled in the form of an authentic instrument (notarial act) or the authenticated private deed.
However, even though the intent of the legislature was to allow for the swift and effective satisfaction of secured claims, appropriation of encumbered real property, as well as any other form of out-of-court enforcement of hypothec, was made practically inoperative through an inadequate wording of the law itself and subsequent judicial interpretations of such wording.
Prior to the statutory changes of 2015, the lower ranking hypothecs remained existing even after the out-of-court enforcement was carried through. This applied to subsequent agreements, as well. In accordance with the judicial interpretations of both first instance and appellate courts, the lower ranking hypothec remained existing, since subsequent agreement concluded between the creditor whose claim was secured by the prior ranking hypothec and the owner of the encumbered real property were considered to be res inter alios acta, hence incapable to affect adversely the rights of the creditor whose claim was secured by the lower ranking hypothec and who was not a party to such contract.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
This all created a paradox: instead of satisfying claim by the appropriation of encumbered real property, the appropriating creditor whose claim was secured by the prior ranking hypothec got him-self compelled to substitute in the place of the encumbered real property owner.
While the issue was resolved by the statutory changes of 2015, for a significant number of cases that took place before the changes, decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of Serbia No. Prev. 194/2015 in AIK Banka v. Agrobanka in bankruptcy case, reported here earlier, may provide a breakthrough. In that particular case, the Supreme Court of Cassation held, for the first time, that the rights of lower ranking hypothecary creditors remain reserved only to the extent the value of appropriated real property exceeds the claim secured by the prior ranking hypothec (hypothec of the appropriating creditor). If, on the other hand, the value of appropriated real property falls short of the claim secured by the prior ranking hypothec, or is equal to it, the appropriating creditor should be entitled to request the remaining lower ranking hypothecs to be extinguished and erased.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact Živković Samardžić Dispute Resolution Associate Ivan Ljubisavljević (ivan.ljubisavljevic@zslaw.rs), or any of your regular contacts at Živković Samardžić. In preparing this insight, Ivan was assisted by Danica Vlaović, trainee attorney at law.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Click here to read this insight in Serbian.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
- Published in Insights