General Overview of Enforcement Under Serbian Law

Serbia boasts a rather comprehensive legal framework when it comes to enforcement matters. The relevant provisions that regulate enforcement matters (eg, proceedings for enforcement of judgments and other enforceable documents, procedure for securing claims, etc) are primarily contained in the Serbian Law on Enforcement and Security (LES, Zakon o izvršenju i obezbeđenju).

In addition, relevant provisions are also contained in the Serbian Law on Civil Procedure (LCP, Zakon o parničnom postupku), which regulates the general rules of court proceedings in civil matters and is thus applied accordingly in enforcement proceedings, as well as the Serbian Law on Resolving Conflicts of Laws with Regulations of Other Countries (LRCL, Zakon o rešavanju sukoba zakona sa propisima drugih zemalja), which, inter alia, regulates the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions in Serbia.

Additionally, Serbia is a party to several multilateral treaties relevant for the matter of recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions, such as the following.

• The Hague Convention on Civil Procedure (1954).
• The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (1965).
• The Hague Convention on Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (1970).
• The Hague Convention on International Access to Justice (1980).
• Hague Conventions related to the matter of family law – ie, Child Abduction (1980), Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (1996) and Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (2007).
• International transportation treaties, including:
1. the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) (1956);
2. the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) (1980);
3. the International Convention concerning the Carriage of Passengers and Luggage by Rail (CIV); and
4. the International Convention concerning the Carriage of Goods by Rail (CIM).

Serbia is also a party to several bilateral treaties with neighbouring and other countries on legal assistance in civil and commercial matters, including in certain cases on matters of mutual recognition and enforcement of court decisions (eg, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Hungary, Greece, France, Belarus, etc).

According to the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia (Ustav Republike Srbije), these international treaties represent an integral part of the Serbian legal framework (ie, they are directly applicable) and take precedence over domestic laws, to the extent that they regulate the same subject matter and provided they do not contravene the Constitution itself.

Serbia is not a member of the EU, which is why EU regulations are not directly applicable. Nevertheless, bearing in mind its candidate status, Serbia is expected to progressively align its legal framework with that of the EU.

Identifying the Assets of Another Party

Publicly available information

There are various public registers in Serbia that may be used to identify the assets of another party. While most of these registers may be accessed by anyone, certain information contained therein (usually sensitive in nature) is often reserved only for specific authorities, such as courts, public notaries, public bailiffs and qualified attorneys-at-law.

The most relevant public registers that may be utilised for asset tracing are as follows.

The Land Register – ie, the Real Property Cadaster (Katastar nepokretnosti)

This is a public register that contains information on immovable assets for the entire territory of Serbia. Maintained by the Serbian Republic Geodetic Authority (Republički geodetski zavod), it contains information on ownership rights, usage rights, mortgages, easements, etc. While general information may be freely accessed online, a more detailed search is available only to certain types of registered users (eg, public notaries and qualified attorneys-at-law).

The Company Register – ie, the Register of Commercial Entities (Registar privrednih subjekata)

This is a public register that contains information on commercial entities registered in Serbia. The register is maintained by the Serbian Business Registers Agency (SBRA, Agencija za privredne registre) and is accessible by inserting either the business name or registration number of the scrutinised entity. Aside from general corporate information, and depending on the legal form of the entity in question, the register also includes information on shareholders, share capital, legal representatives (eg, managing directors), registered bank accounts, etc. As well as active legal entities, the register also contains information on legal entities that are subject to insolvency or liquidation proceedings.

The Register of Financial Statements (Registar finansijskih izveštaja)

This is a central public electronic database, maintained by the SBRA, which contains records of published financial statements concerning the legal entities registered in the Register of Commercial Entities, in line with the Serbian Law on Accounting (Zakon o računovodstvu). Consulting the information contained in the register makes it easy to monitor a legal entity’s overall business performance in the Serbian market.

The Central Register of Ultimate Beneficial Owners (Centralna evidencija stvarnih vlasnika)

This is maintained by the SBRA and allows the determination of the (indirect) commercial owners of legal entities in Serbia. Although the register is publicly accessible, one must be registered with the Serbian e-Government (e-Uprava) platform to do so.

The Pledge Register (Registar založnog prava)

This is maintained by the SBRA and contains information on pledge rights on movable property and other rights (eg, shares in companies). The register is fully public and available online.

The Bankruptcy Cases Database (Baza podataka o stečajnim postupcima)

This is an online database maintained by the Serbian Insolvency Supervision Agency (Agencija za licenciranje stečajnih upravnika), which publishes key information on the status of ongoing insolvency proceedings, including information on the insolvency debtor, the insolvency court and its decisions, the appointed insolvency administrator and its reports, etc.

The Unified Register of Accounts (Jedinstveni registar računa)

This is maintained by the National Bank of Serbia (NBS, Narodna banka Srbije) and contains information on all dinar (RSD) and foreign currency accounts held by legal entities (ie, companies and entrepreneurs) and natural persons (ie, citizens), opened with commercial banks, the Treasury Administration (Uprava za trezor) and the NBS itself. The register also contains up-to-date information on whether the account is active or frozen due to forced collection. While information on accounts of companies and entrepreneurs is publicly available online, information on accounts of citizens may only be accessed based on the request of authorised bodies (eg, courts, public bailiffs etc).

Registers and databases held with the Serbian Intellectual Property Bureau (Zavod za intelektualnu svojinu)

These include the Trade Mark Register (Registar žigova), the Patent Register (Registar patenata), the Design Database (Baza podataka industrijskih dizajna), etc. These registers and databases are fully accessible to the public and contain information on national intellectual and industrial property rights and their holders.

Additional public registries in Serbia contain important data useful for the assessment of the financial status of the scrutinised entity, including the registered promissory notes, court prohibitions, temporary suspensions of rights by public authorities, financial leasing contracts, etc.

Various private companies also consolidate information from some of the public sources listed above, and provide subscription-based overviews of the current status and financial standing of legal entities in Serbia.

Further means of identifying assets

In addition to the aforementioned public registries and information, additional formal means are available under Serbian law that may allow the identification of someone’s assets, as follows.

Enforcement disclosure duty

Article 31 of the LES foresees that, during enforcement proceedings, state bodies, public authorities, legal entities (eg, commercial banks) and entrepreneurs must, upon the request of a court or public bailiff, provide free-of-charge, detailed information about the debtor, including (inter alia) information on:

• salaries and other regular income;
• bank accounts, balances and transactions;
• shares in companies; and
• ownership of and other rights over movable and immovable assets.

Such request may also be filed by the enforcement creditor (izvršni poverilac) holding an enforceable title (izvršna isprava) or a promissory note. Disclosure duties, however, do not apply to information that is publicly registered and freely accessible. In addition, if the debtor’s assets exceed the amount of the claim in question, the aforementioned persons are only obligated to inform the requesting authority that said assets are sufficient for said claim to be satisfied. In any case, the provided information may be used exclusively for the purpose of determining the property of the debtor and subsequent enforcement.

Interim measures

Although freezing orders are not directly foreseen under the Serbian legal framework, specific security measures with similar effects, known as interim measures (privremene mere), are available to creditors for the purpose of preventing the debtor from hindering the future enforcement of their monetary or non-monetary claim. These measures may include:

• prohibition of disposal of movable and immovable assets;
• seizure of funds located in bank accounts; and
• public registration of the existence of such interim measures, etc.

Said measures may be imposed prior to, during or even after completion of court or administrative proceedings that relate to the claim in question, up until the moment the enforcement has successfully been carried out. If an interim measure is imposed prior to the instigation of the relevant proceedings, the court will simultaneously instruct the creditor to instigate appropriate proceedings within a certain deadline, under threat of the interim measure being terminated. In any case, in order for an interim measure to be imposed, the creditor must generally prove the likelihood of:

• the claim; and
• the danger that that collection of the claim would be made considerably more difficult or even impossible in the absence of such measure.

Article 19 of the LES provides a general prohibition of disposal of assets covered by (inter alia) interim measures, rendering such activities null and void.

Preliminary measures

In addition to interim measures, Serbian law also foresees the possibility of the court imposing preliminary measures (prethodne mere) – ie, security measures designed exclusively for monetary claims arising out of certain titles, such as a non-final domestic court judgment, settlement or enforcement order issued based on a promissory note or cheque. The creditor must prove the likelihood that recovery of the claim would otherwise be frustrated or seriously impeded, whereby the measure itself may last for a maximum period of 15 days after the conditions for instigating enforcement proceedings have been met. Preliminary measures may encompass an inventory of the debtor’s movable assets or a seizure of the debtor’s monetary claim towards a third party, followed by an establishment of a pledge in favour of the creditor, etc.

Serbian courts generally decide in civil matters by means of rulings (rešenje) and judgments (presuda). Rulings usually deal with procedural issues, order enforcement, impose measures (eg, interim measures) and can dispose of a claim for procedural reasons. In contrast, judgments represent decisions on a claim adopted with respect to the merits of the dispute.

Judgments Based on Nature of Relief

Judgments may be broadly distinguished based on the nature of the relief granted therein.

Condemnatory judgment (kondemnatorna presuda)

This orders performance (ie, a positive action, such as payment of a certain amount or performance of a specific action) or non-performance (ie, a negative action, such as prohibition from doing or an order to tolerate something). A condemnatory performance judgment is eligible for enforcement.

Constitutive judgment (konstitutivna presuda)

This establishes, amends or nullifies a right, legal status or legal relationship, thus directly affecting the parties involved. A constitutive judgment automatically becomes effective once it is final and binding, thus eliminating the need for its enforcement.

Declaratory judgment (deklaratorna presuda)

This clarifies (ie, determines) the existence or non-existence of a right, legal status or legal relationship. A declaratory judgment is not eligible for enforcement, although it may evidence the existence or non-existence of the respective right, legal status or legal relationship.

Other Judgments

While a judgment will generally be issued with respect to the subject matter of the dispute in a manner that resolves the dispute in its entirety, it is also possible for the court to adopt its decisions in several steps, in which case it may issue one of the following types of judgments.

Partial judgment (delimična presuda, Article 346 LCP)

This may be adopted in relation to one or more claims, counterclaims or parts thereof, which are ready to be decided upon (eg, owing to them being acknowledged by the other party or sufficiently proven in the course of the proceedings). A partial judgment has the same effect as a final judgment, and is fully enforceable.

Interim judgment (međupresuda, Article 347 LCP)

This may be adopted for practical reasons, for the purpose of structuring the proceedings in different phases. By adopting an interim judgment, the court first decides on whether the claim in question is justified on its merits, postponing its decision on the actual amount of the claim until the interim judgment becomes final. Accordingly, the interim judgment generally cannot be enforced.

Supplementary judgment (dopunska presuda, Article 356 LCP)

If the court fails to decide on all raised claims or any part thereof, a party may request that the court issues a supplementary judgment in that regard within 15 days from receipt of the initial judgment. A supplementary judgment has the effect of a final judgment, and is fully enforceable.

Serbian law also recognises certain types of judgments that may be adopted by the court without further deliberation due to a specific action or inaction of the parties involved in the proceedings – namely, the following.

Default judgment (presuda zbog propuštanja, Article 350 LCP)

This is a decision granting the claim if the defendant – to whom the claim was served for the purpose of submitting a formal response to the claim – fails to submit it within the statutory deadline, provided that:

• the claim was duly served to the defendant along with a notice regarding the consequences of its failure to respond;
• the facts on which the claim is based are not contrary to the evidence submitted by the claimant or to facts that are generally known;
• the merits of the claim arise from the facts stated therein; and
• there are no generally known circumstances indicating that justified reasons prevented the defendant from responding to the claim.

A default judgment is fully enforceable once it becomes final.

Non-appearance judgment (presuda zbog izostanka, Article 351 LCP)

This is a decision granting the claim if the defendant – to whom the claim was not served for the purpose of submitting a formal response to the claim, but was served together with the summons for a hearing – fails to appear at the first scheduled hearing, or if the defendant does appear but refuses to engage in the proceedings and does not contest the claim, provided that:

• the defendant was duly summoned to the hearing;
• the defendant did not contest the claim by filing a written formal response to it;
• the facts on which the claim is based are not contrary to the evidence submitted by the claimant or to facts that are generally known;
• the merits of the claim arise from the facts stated therein; and
• there are no generally known circumstances indicating that justified reasons prevented the defendant from responding to the claim.

A judgment by default of appearance is fully enforceable once it becomes final.

Acceptance judgment (presuda na osnovu priznanja, Article 348 LCP)

This is a decision granting the claim if the defendant accepts the claim prior to the conclusion of the main hearing. An acceptance judgment is fully enforceable once it becomes final.

Waiver judgment (presuda na osnovu odricanja, Article 349 LCP)

This is a decision rejecting the claim if the claimant waives its claim prior to the conclusion of the main hearing. The defendant’s consent is not required for such waiver of the claim. Judgments based on waiver are unenforceable, except to the extent that they relate to procedural costs.

The aforementioned judgments may be adopted only if they do not relate to a matter over which the parties may not freely dispose (eg, defendant did not respond to the claim, yet the claim is obviously in contravention of imperative norms, public policy, moral rules or good practice).

Instigation of Enforcement Proceedings

A prerequisite for enforcement under Serbian law is the existence of an enforceable title, or a self-authenticated document (verodostojna isprava). Pursuant to the LES, enforceable titles under Serbian law include (inter alia):

• final court decisions (ie, rulings and judgments) or court settlements ordering the performance or non-performance of a certain action;
• mortgage agreements;
• pledge statements; and
• other documents prepared in the form of a notarial deed, etc.

In contrast, self-authenticated documents include (inter alia):

• promissory notes or cheques issued by a domestic or foreign person (accompanied by a protest where required to establish the claim);
• invoices issued by a domestic or foreign person (accompanied by a delivery note or other written proof that the debtor has been notified of the obligation); and
• bank guarantees, etc.

In order for a judgment to represent an enforceable title under Serbian law, it must be formally confirmed as final and enforceable by the competent court (usually by affixing official stamps on an original copy of the judgment) – ie, certifying that no further appeal is possible against the judgment and that the performance period stated therein (granted to the defendant to voluntarily comply with the judgment) has expired.

Assuming that the judgment constitutes an appropriate enforceable title, a creditor may instigate enforcement proceedings by filing a motion for enforcement (predlog za izvršenje) before the competent authority. Ordering the enforcement – ie, the adoption of an enforcement decision – primarily falls within the competence of Serbian courts, while public bailiffs are responsible for carrying out the enforcement activities. There are, however, situations when all enforcement-related authorisations (ie, both its ordering and execution) are exclusively granted to either the court or the public bailiff (eg, a public bailiff is exclusively responsible for the enforcement of claims arising from utility services).

Depending on the nature of the claim in question as well as the parties involved, enforcement proceedings may be instigated before a basic court (osnovni sud) or a commercial court (privredni sud), designated for the territory of the debtor’s domicile or registered seat. Apart from such general territorial jurisdiction (opšta mesna nadležnost), the LES provides various other jurisdictional grounds, including cases of exclusive jurisdiction (isključiva nadležnost) of certain courts (eg, the court designated for the territory on which immovable property is located, etc).

While a motion for enforcement must be filed in writing, no official form is provided for under Serbian law. Nevertheless, the LES explicitly regulates information that must be included in such motion in order for the competent authority to be able to issue an appropriate enforcement decision based on it (eg, appropriate identification of the parties, the claim and the enforceable title in question, the proposed means and objects of enforcement, etc).

Upon receipt of the motion, the court will examine the fulfilment of both the formal and material requirements for its adoption. If such requirements are met, said court will order the enforcement of the relevant enforceable title (ie, judgment) by passing an enforcement decision.

Means and Objects of Enforcement

Serbian law distinguishes between:

• means of enforcement (sredstva izvršenja) – compulsory actions through which the satisfaction of a claim is carried out; and
• objects of enforcement (predmeti izvršenja) – assets and rights of the debtor against which the enforcement is being conducted.

Means of enforcement are expressly regulated by the LES and differ depending on whether they are aimed at the satisfaction of a monetary or a non-monetary claim. While the creditor is generally expected to propose one or more means and objects of enforcement in their motion for enforcement, a creditor of a monetary claim may also request that the enforcement instead be conducted against the entire property of the debtor, in which case the public bailiff will be charged with identifying the debtor’s assets and deciding on the most beneficial means and objects of enforcement.

When conducting the enforcement of a monetary claim, the public bailiff must take into account the principle of proportionality and ensure a balance between:

• the amount of the debtor’s obligation towards the creditor; and
• the means and value of the object of enforcement.

In doing so, the public bailiff must ensure that the enforcement is conducted in a way that is of least inconvenience for the debtor. However, this general rule does not apply to cases when the debtor has expressly consented, in the form of a notarial deed (eg, a mortgage agreement or pledge statement), that the enforcement of the specific claim be carried out by specific means or on a specific object of enforcement, nor in cases when it is obvious that only specific means or objects of enforcement may be used to satisfy the claim in question.

According to the LES, certain assets are exempt from enforcement, such as:

• clothes, footwear and other items for personal use;
• furniture that is considered necessary for the debtor and members of their household; and
• food and fuel necessary for the debtor and members of their household for a period of three months, etc.

In addition, certain income is also exempt in this regard, including:

• from statutory maintenance (ie, alimony) obligations;
• that received under social protection regulations;
• from temporary unemployment; and
• from scholarships, etc.

The LES also provides that enforcement on wages, salaries, pension payments and similar income be limited to a specific portion of such income, depending on its actual amount (eg, one half, one third, one fourth or even one tenth), whereby higher protection applies to income at or below minimum wage or average pension.

The LES further provides an additional possibility for the creditor to request court-imposed penalties (sudski penali) against the debtor that fails to voluntarily fulfil its non-monetary obligation, in certain cases.

Moreover, for the purpose of securing the creditor’s monetary claim towards the debtor, the LES also provides that the parties may jointly request that the court establish:

• a mortgage on the debtor’s immovable property; or
• a pledge on the debtor’s movable property.

Insolvency of the Debtor

Unlike individual enforcement proceedings (which are generally aimed at satisfying the claim of a single creditor), insolvency proceedings may be viewed as a collective enforcement mechanism, aimed at the proportional satisfaction of creditors, depending on the legal nature and priority of their claims.

Insolvency proceedings are regulated by the Serbian Insolvency Law (Zakon o stečaju), and may be instigated against a legal entity if one or more legally defined grounds for insolvency are determined:

• long-standing illiquidity – where the debtor is unable to settle monetary obligations for 45 days or has suspended payments for 30 consecutive days (also presumed if a creditor was unsuccessful in enforcement);
• imminent illiquidity – where it is evident that the debtor will not be able to meet its future obligations;
• over-indebtedness – where the debtor’s liabilities exceed its assets; or
• breach or unlawful adoption of a restructuring plan (plan reorganizacije).

Insolvency proceedings may be conducted as either:

• bankruptcy proceedings (bankrotstvo), which result in the ultimate dissolution of the debtor’s estate; or
• restructuring proceedings (reorganizacija), which enable the continuation of the debtor in line with a court-approved restructuring plan.

Nonetheless, the overall goal of both types of insolvency proceedings is to ensure an equitable and efficient distribution of the debtor’s assets among all identified (unsecured) creditors, while minimising costs and delays.

Moreover, instigation of insolvency proceedings imposes a stay on individual enforcement and centralises creditor satisfaction under a single court’s supervision, through collective management of the debtor’s estate by the court-appointed insolvency administrator. This collective framework prevents disorderly enforcement and ensures that all creditors participate based on transparent and legally defined priority rules.

Forced Collection Against Bank Accounts

In addition to the foregoing, Articles 47–49 of the Serbian Law on Payment Transactions (Zakon o platnom prometu) also provide an alternative possibility for creditors that are in possession of a promissory note, other securities or default authorisations to “bypass” the standard judicial enforcement regime provided under the LES, by initiating forced collection (prinudna naplata) directly against the debtor’s bank accounts.

However, a prerequisite for such forced collection is that the promissory note or default authorisation in question was previously registered in the public Register of Promissory Notes and Authorisations (Registar menica i ovlašćenja), maintained by the NBS. If said prerequisite is fulfilled, the creditor may issue a payment order to a bank – this order is then transmitted to the NBS for the purpose of carrying out the forced collection.

Enforcement proceedings under Serbian law are considered urgent by nature. This is reflected in the fact that the LES provides short and strict deadlines for the parties involved, as well as for the acting court itself (between three and eight days). In addition, oral hearings in enforcement proceedings are rarely scheduled and decisions on enforcement are generally adopted ex parte – ie, without first serving the motion for enforcement to the debtor. If the debtor lodges an appeal against the enforcement decision, such appeal generally does not stay its enforcement. This allows the enforcement proceedings themselves to be carried out relatively quickly and effectively.

However, the course and timing of each enforcement proceeding heavily depend on the actual circumstances of the case, the means of enforcement proposed by the creditor, and the public bailiff’s assessment on whether they are adequate. For example, public sale of the debtor’s real property may take a lot more time (due to the many administrative steps involved) than seizing funds located in their bank accounts. In that respect, successful enforcement of a claim may take anywhere from a few weeks to several months (or even years).

The costs involved comprise both official fees (ie, court and public bailiff fees) and lawyers’ fees, and depend both on the value of the claim being enforced and on the enforcement means and actions of the public bailiff.

Court fees are relatively low – the highest court fee arising from filing of a motion for enforcement amounts to RSD48,750 (approximately EUR400) if done before a basic court, or RSD195,000 (approximately EUR1,600) if done before a commercial court; these are calculated in accordance with the Serbian Law on Court Fees (Zakon o sudskim taksama).

In contrast, public bailiff fees are generally charged at different stages of the proceedings – the maximum amount of advance costs that must be paid by the creditor immediately upon filing of the motion for enforcement is RSD250,000 (approximately EUR2,100), while the success fee that is paid upon the satisfaction of the claim may amount to a maximum of RSD2 million (approximately EUR17,000); these are defined under the Public Bailiff Tariff (Javnoizvršiteljska tarifa).

In that respect, the LES foresees a general obligation of the creditor to provide an advance settlement of official fees, while also providing that the debtor shall ultimately be liable for reimbursement of costs incurred by the creditor in the course of the enforcement, if explicitly requested by the creditor within eight days from the successful completion of the proceedings. However, the creditor is only entitled to request the reimbursement of costs that were justified, meaning that unjustified expenses (eg, those accumulated through the instigation of multiple enforcement proceedings based on the same enforceable title) will not be taken into account.

All notable means for identifying a debtor’s assets under Serbian law are outlined in 1.1 Options to Identify Another Party’s Asset Position and 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments.

Lodging an Appeal

Under Serbian law, the defendant may oppose the enforcement decision by lodging an appeal (žalba) within eight days from the receipt of such decision. However, lodging an appeal generally does not stay the enforcement of the contested decision.

The appeal itself must clearly state the grounds on which it is lodged, along with appropriate facts and evidence supporting it. In that respect, Article 74 LES foresees that the defendant may challenge the enforcement decision on various grounds, inter alia by arguing that:

• the document on which the enforcement decision is based does not represent an enforceable title;
• the enforceable title on which the enforcement decision is based has been annulled, revoked, amended or set aside, or is not yet enforceable;
• the court or administrative settlement, or the notarial deed of settlement, on which the enforcement decision is based has been annulled or otherwise set aside;
• the deadline for the debtor to voluntarily fulfil the obligation in question has not yet expired;
• the statutory period for requesting enforcement has lapsed; or
• the claim established by the enforceable title has become time-barred, etc.

As regards other decisions adopted in the course of the enforcement proceedings (eg, a decision on procedural costs), the debtor is generally granted the ability to oppose them by means of an objection (prigovor).

Delaying the Enforcement

Delaying the enforcement (Odlaganje izvršenja, Articles 120–127 LES) is allowed in certain situations under Serbian law, including upon a request of the debtor, provided that it proves the likelihood that carrying out the enforcement would cause it irreparable or disproportionately greater harm than the creditor would suffer from such delay, and assuming that such delay is justified by specific reasons which the debtor must substantiate via a public or otherwise duly certified document.

While the enforcement is formally delayed, no coercive measures are taken (save for steps needed to secure a lien or appraise an asset), and enforcement automatically resumes when the delay period expires or the reasons for it cease to exist.

Third-Party Involvement and Inadmissibility Claim

A third-party objection and claim for inadmissibility (Articles 108–112 LES) are stipulated under the LES as specific legal remedies that allow any third party claiming a right that prevents enforcement on a particular asset to – before completion of such proceedings – lodge an objection requesting that the public bailiff declare enforcement over such asset inadmissible.

If the objection is dismissed or rejected, the relevant third party may, within 30 days from receipt of such underlying decision, request that the enforcement be declared inadmissible by a court by filing a civil lawsuit – although doing so does not stay the enforcement in question.

As noted in 2.1 Types of Domestic Judgments, constitutive judgments do not require enforcement, while declaratory judgments can be relied on but are unenforceable by nature. In addition, given their interim nature, interim judgments rendered under Serbian law are also not enforceable. Moreover, if any judgment contains obvious omissions or errors (eg, identity of parties, amount of the claim, etc) that have not been duly corrected in the underlying proceedings, it may be considered partially or fully unenforceable. 

In Serbia, there is no publicly accessible central register of domestic judgments. However, the Serbian judiciary maintains an online case-tracking option, which may be used to monitor the status of court proceedings (both ongoing and those concluded), provided that appropriate information regarding the case (ie, case file designation and competent court) is inserted into the search engine.

Moreover, official case law publications are prepared and published by certain (usually higher instance) courts, with data redacted on the specific details of the dispute.

Finally, various private companies maintain subscription-based repositories of redacted court practice, which may be accessed for a monthly and/or yearly fee.

A foreign court judgment will have legal effect in Serbia only if it is first recognised by the competent Serbian court in accordance with the applicable laws. Once formally recognised, such foreign court judgment may be enforced as any other domestic judgment, provided that it refers to a private legal claim and that it is final and enforceable in its country of origin. Aside from court judgments, Serbian law also foresees the possibility of recognising other court decisions, court settlements and decisions adopted by another authority which, in their country of origin, are considered equivalent to a court decision or court settlement.

The procedure for recognition of foreign court judgments in Serbia is primarily regulated by the Law on Resolving Conflicts of Laws with Regulations of Other Countries (LRCL, Zakon o rešavanju sukoba zakona sa propisima drugih zemalja), which explicitly defines the terms and procedure under which such recognition may be carried out. In addition, the Serbian Law on Non-Contentious Proceedings (LNP, Zakon o vanparničnom postupku) as well as the Law on Civil Procedure (LCP, Zakon o parničnom postupku) govern certain procedural aspects of the recognition of foreign judgments and other court decisions that are not explicitly regulated by the LRCL. Finally, the possibility of recognition of foreign court decisions as a preliminary issue (prethodno pitanje) in enforcement proceedings is possible and regulated by Article 46 of the LES.

Aside from domestic laws, the issue of recognition of foreign judgments in Serbia is also regulated by various bilateral treaties that Serbia has concluded with other countries. To the extent that these bilateral treaties regulate the matter of recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions, they supersede domestic laws. In that respect, these bilateral treaties may provide additional (stricter or more lenient) conditions that must be met in order for court decisions originating from the other country to be recognised in Serbia (and vice versa).

Specific legal grounds for (dis)allowing recognition of foreign judgments under Serbian law are listed in 3.3 Categories of Foreign Judgments Not Enforced, while the different procedural approaches to the recognition of foreign judgments are outlined in 3.4 Process of Enforcing Foreign Judgments.

Assuming that no multilateral or bilateral treaty stipulates otherwise, rules for recognition and subsequent enforcement of foreign judgments in Serbia are generally uniform, although they may be somewhat less strict when it comes to judgments related to personal, marital and family matters.

Provided that a foreign judgment has been appropriately recognised under Serbian law, it may be enforced in the same way as a domestic judgment. For more information in this regard, please see 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments.

Without making any specific distinctions with respect to the types or categories of foreign judgments, the LRCL provides specific cases in which a Serbian court will refuse to recognise a foreign court decision, as follows:

• if the party against whom recognition is sought was unable to participate in the underlying proceedings before the foreign court due to procedural shortcomings;
• if there is exclusive jurisdiction of Serbian courts or other authorities over the same legal matter (eg, disputes concerning real estate located in Serbia, marital and family disputes, personal status rights, etc);
• if there is already a final and binding domestic decision or another foreign decision recognised in the Republic of Serbia concerning the same matter between the same parties;
• if it is contrary to Serbian public policy (ie, the “foundations of the social system established by the Constitution”); and
• if there is no reciprocity between Serbia and the country of origin of the foreign court judgment (whereby the existence of factual reciprocity is assumed, though it may be challenged).

As a general comment, it should be noted that in practice, (non-)compliance with Serbian public policy is often interpreted quite narrowly by Serbian courts.

The LRCL also stipulates exceptions for certain types of legal matters, in which specific refusal grounds shall not be taken into account – for example, the existence of reciprocity is irrelevant for matrimonial or parentage judgments, and if the recognition is sought by a Serbian national, a decision on the personal status of a citizen of the country of its origin shall be recognised without testing the exclusive jurisdiction, reciprocity and similar requirements, etc.

In principle, recognition of foreign court judgments in Serbia may be sought pursuant to either:

• the LRCL, which foresees standalone non-contentious court proceedings in which the recognition of a foreign judgment is the main subject of the proceedings; or
• the LES, which allows the court to consider the matter of recognition of a foreign court judgment as a preliminary issue within enforcement proceedings.

The main difference between these two options is the fact that recognition of a foreign court judgment that is performed in the course of enforcement proceedings has limited legal effect – ie, it produces legal effect only in those specific enforcement proceedings in which it was addressed as a preliminary issue. By contrast, a foreign court judgment that is recognised in standalone non-contentious proceedings (in which the matter of its recognition was the main subject of the proceedings) has full legal effect under Serbian law.

Recognition in Standalone Non-Contentious Proceedings

The LRCL provides that a party may submit a request for the recognition of a foreign court judgment before a competent Serbian court if such request is supported by:

• the relevant foreign court decision;
• a confirmation on its finality under the laws of its origin country, issued by the competent authority (eg, court or other authority); and
• certified translations of these documents into the Serbian language, prepared by a court-sworn translator.

Upon receipt, the court generally serves the recognition request to the other party, who may formally respond to it. In any case, the component Serbian court will consider the recognition request in light of the requirements set out in the LRCL – ie, it will assess whether there are any grounds for refusal of recognition as listed in 3.3 Categories of Foreign Judgments Not Enforced, after which it will decide by way of a ruling.

Once a ruling is adopted, the parties are authorised to lodge an appeal against it through the first-instance court within 15 days of the receipt of such ruling. If an appeal is indeed lodged, it will be served to the other party, which may then provide a formal response to such appeal within the next 15 days. According to the LNP, an appeal shall generally stay a decision on recognition (ie, it will not become final) and therefore also the enforcement of the relevant foreign judgment.

Once the decision on recognition of the foreign judgment becomes final, further proceedings for enforcement of such judgment may then be pursued in accordance with the procedure explained in 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments.

Recognition as a Preliminary Issue in Enforcement Proceedings

As an alternative to the aforementioned approach, the LES foresees that the recognition of a foreign judgment may also be addressed directly in enforcement proceedings, as a preliminary issue.

Specifically, Article 46 of the LES allows the instigation of enforcement proceedings on the basis of a foreign enforceable title (ie, a foreign court judgment), even if standalone court proceedings for its recognition have not been previously conducted in Serbia. In that respect, the court competent to preside over the enforcement proceedings may also decide on the recognition of the relevant foreign court judgment as a preliminary, threshold matter – ie, it would also decide whether the terms for its recognition have been met.

The enforcement proceedings themselves are instigated by submitting a motion for enforcement, which contains mandatory elements prescribed under the LES, along with:

• the foreign court decision, in original or certified copy;
• a confirmation on its finality and enforceability under the laws of its origin country, issued by the competent authority (eg, court or other authority); and
• certified translations of these documents into the Serbian language, prepared by a court-sworn translator.

Upon receipt, the court is not formally obligated to serve the motion for enforcement to the other party for response – ie, the enforcement decision may be adopted ex parte by the court. However, the court may serve the motion for enforcement to the other party if a recognition request is involved, and this is accepted as a common practice of Serbian courts. Once an enforcement decision is adopted, it is served to the other party, which may then lodge an appeal against it within eight days from receipt of such decision. In addition to standard reasons for challenging the enforcement decision, the appeal may also relate to the reasons concerning the (non-)existence of grounds for recognition of a foreign judgment. If an appeal is lodged, it will be served to the other party, which may then file a formal response within the next eight days. Upon receipt of the response to the appeal, the first-instance court delivers the case file to the court of second instance, which decides on the appeal.

If the enforcement decision is upheld (including the recognition element), further enforcement is performed in accordance with the procedure explained in 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments.

Depending on which of the two approaches for recognition and enforcement of a foreign court decision (listed in 3.4 Process of Enforcing Foreign Judgments) is chosen, the time needed to enforce such decision may vary.

Specifically, due to the enforcement proceedings being considered urgent under Serbian law, requesting that recognition of a foreign decision be assessed as a preliminary issue in such proceedings is generally less time-consuming. This is due to the fact that the non-contentious proceedings for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment may last for many months, especially in more complex cases and when the other party challenges and appeals the recognition itself, with the average duration (including both first- and second-instance stages) being between 12 and 18 months. That said, enforcement proceedings may also last a significant amount of time in practice – eg, due partly to the reasons related to the consideration of conditions for recognition of a foreign court judgment, which the court evaluates as a preliminary (ie, threshold) matter.

As for the procedural costs involved, aside from lawyers’ fees, instigation of separate non-contentious proceedings for recognition of a foreign court judgment triggers only relatively minor court fees. However, in the case of enforcement of such decision, general rules on enforcement costs under Serbian law (as mentioned in 2.3 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Domestic Judgments) apply accordingly.

It is possible to challenge the recognition of a foreign court judgment by proving the existence of one or more grounds for refusal provided under the LRCL, as outlined in 3.3 Categories of Foreign Judgments Not Enforced, while its enforcement may be challenged on the same grounds as outlined in 2.5 Challenging Enforcement of Domestic Judgments.

As a general note, the procedure for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Serbia is primarily regulated by the Serbian Law on Arbitration (LOA, Zakon o arbitraži), which is aligned with the provisions of the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958), originally signed and ratified by former SFR Yugoslavia and subsequently maintained by Serbia.

Moreover, Serbia is also a party to the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (1961), as well as the ICSID Convention – ie, the Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (1965).

Accordingly, Serbia generally has a positive outlook on resolution of disputes via arbitration, whereby Serbian courts are expected to enforce valid arbitration agreements and to dismiss, upon a party’s objection, any claims brought before courts in contravention of an arbitration agreement, unless such agreement is obviously null and void, is without legal effect or is unenforceable.

Arbitral awards in Serbia that are final are generally enforceable, and there is no specific differentiation between types and categories of arbitral awards when it comes to the matter of their enforcement.

Under Serbian law, a domestic arbitral award has the same legal effect as a domestic court decision and is thus eligible for enforcement in accordance with the local procedure stipulated under the LES.

Foreign arbitral awards have to be formally recognised by a competent Serbian court before they may be enforced. Provided that a foreign arbitral award has been appropriately recognised under Serbian law, it is enforced in the same way as a domestic court judgment. 

Specific legal grounds are provided under the LOA that may be used to request annulment of a domestic arbitral award before a Serbian court. Such course of action must be performed within three months from the date of receipt of said arbitral award.

Regarding foreign arbitral awards, before they can be enforced in Serbia, their legality is examined by the competent Serbian court in the relevant recognition proceedings. The LOA lists specific grounds for refusal that apply to the recognition of foreign arbitral awards.

Legal grounds for annulment of a domestic arbitral award and challenging the recognition of a foreign arbitral award are similar, and may be split into two categories.

• Those assessed by the Serbian court ex officio, namely:
1. if the foreign arbitral award concerns a non-arbitrable matter; or
2. if the foreign arbitral award is contrary to the public policy of Serbia.
• Those assessed by the Serbian court upon the request/objection of a party, namely:
1. if the arbitration agreement is invalid;
2. if the party against which the foreign arbitral award was adopted was not duly notified of the appointment of the arbitrator(s), the arbitration proceedings themselves, or was otherwise denied the right to participate in such proceedings;
3. if the arbitrator(s) decided on a matter that was not entrusted to them under the arbitration agreement at all or if it exceeded the scope of their mandate (in which case partial recognition is still possible, to the extent that the decision adopted within such scope is severable);
4. if the appointment of the arbitration tribunal (or single arbitrator) or the arbitration proceedings were not performed in line with the arbitration agreement, applicable rules or laws; and
5. if a domestic arbitral award is based on false testimony by a witness or expert witness or on a forged document, or is a result of a criminal act, or if a foreign arbitral award did not yet become binding between the parties or was annulled or stayed from enforcement by a decision of the court of its country of origin.

Pursuant to the LES, domestic arbitral awards are granted the same legal effect as domestic court judgments. They are thus considered to constitute enforceable titles and are enforced in line with the procedure outlined in 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments.

In contrast, a foreign arbitral award must first be recognised by a Serbian court, whereby the request for recognition must also include:

• the relevant arbitral award in original or certified copy (along with a confirmation on its finality and enforceability, if not evidenced from the award itself);
• the arbitration agreement (which may be in the form of an arbitration clause or a separate agreement) in original or certified copy; and
• certified translations of these documents into the Serbian language, obtained from a court-sworn translator.

The procedure for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in Serbia generally follows the one provided for foreign court judgments, as outlined in 3.4 Process of Enforcing Foreign Judgments, with some minor differences (ie, the appeal deadline is extended to 30 days).

Information outlined in 2.3 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Domestic Judgments and 3.5 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Foreign Judgments applies to the process of enforcement of domestic and foreign arbitral awards in Serbia, respectively.

As noted in 4.3 Categories of Arbitral Awards Not Enforced, the LOA provides specific grounds under which the defendant may file a lawsuit for annulment of a domestic arbitral award. If such lawsuit is filed, the court may postpone the enforcement of a domestic arbitral award upon the defendant’s request, if it is proven that there is a likelihood of the lawsuit’s success or that the immediate enforcement would cause irreparable harm.

Recognition of a foreign arbitral award may be challenged by proving the existence of one or more grounds for refusal provided under the LOA, as listed in 4.3 Categories of Arbitral Awards Not Enforced. In addition, Article 67 of the LOA provides that the Serbian court may stay the recognition procedure if a procedure for the annulment or stay of enforcement of the relevant foreign arbitral award was instigated in the country where the award was adopted or the country in accordance with whose laws it was adopted, until the completion of such proceedings.

Challenging the enforcement of a domestic or foreign arbitral award may be done on the same grounds as those outlined in 2.5 Challenging Enforcement of Domestic Judgments.