Serbia, and Belgrade in particular, has established itself as a premier venue for international arbitration in the Balkan peninsula.

The arbitration community is highly developed, featuring a number of experts - both in academia and in practice. Many arbitration-related events take place every year in Serbia. 

Arbitration as a mode of dispute settlement is charting continuous growth, although litigation is still prevalent. Domestic parties are not reluctant to resort to international arbitration. To that end, the most frequently selected institutions are ICC and VIAC, but there are also international arbitration cases before the Serbian arbitration institutions (Belgrade Arbitration Centre and Permanent Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia).

Arbitration is especially prevalent in the construction industry in recent years. This is due to the fact that a significant number of large international projects that were ongoing during the COVID-19 crisis and the Russia-Ukraine war are now being completed and claims are being brought for adjustments of price due to the significant changes in prices of elements used to form the prices for these projects, caused by these crises.

International arbitrations are administered by two institutions in Serbia: the Permanent Arbitration of the Serbian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Belgrade Arbitration Centre (BAC).

Recently, a new institution was established: the Construction Dispute Resolution Centre (CDRC) at the Association of Consulting Engineers of Serbia (ACES).

Set-aside proceedings and proceedings for the recognition and enforcement are conducted before the Higher Courts or the Commercial Courts as the first instance, the Court of Appeal or the Commercial Court of Appeal as the second and the Supreme Court of Serbia as the final instance.

The arbitration procedure in Serbia is primarily governed by the Law on Arbitration, which aligns closely with the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Serbia, as a Model Law jurisdiction, has adopted the core principles and framework established by the UNCITRAL Model Law, ensuring consistency with international standards and practices. The national legislation aims to provide a predictable and efficient legal framework for the conduct of international arbitration, thereby promoting Serbia as a favourable seat for arbitration.

The Serbian Law on Arbitration rarely diverges from the UNCITRAL Model Law, maintaining a high degree of fidelity to the original text. However, where deviations exist, they are generally minor and pertain to procedural specifics tailored to the domestic legal context.

There have been no changes to Serbian arbitration law in the past year, nor are there any changes planned in the immediate future.

Moreover, there are no current indications or announcements of pending legislation that might alter the arbitration framework in the immediate future. 

Under Serbian law, an arbitration agreement must be concluded in a written form to be enforceable. This requirement can be satisfied in several ways. The agreement may be embedded within a contract as an arbitration clause or exist as a separate agreement. The written form is deemed to be fulfilled even if the agreement is reached through an exchange of communications - such as letters, faxes, emails, or other electronic messages - that can serve as evidence of the parties' consent, irrespective of whether these messages are signed. Additionally, an arbitration agreement is considered valid if a written contract between the parties references another document containing an arbitration clause, as long as it is clear that the parties intended to incorporate the arbitration clause by reference.

Under Serbian law, the concept of arbitrability plays a crucial role in determining the scope of matters that can be resolved through arbitration. Generally, arbitration can be utilised for disputes concerning rights that are freely available to the parties, meaning that they can dispose of these rights without restriction. However, certain subject matters are deemed non-arbitrable due to the mandatory jurisdiction of state courts or public policy considerations.

For instance, disputes related to family law matters, such as divorce or child custody, are not arbitrable because they involve personal status and public interest, which require the oversight of state courts. Similarly, disputes concerning property claims regarding immovables, such as real estate ownership issues, are typically excluded from arbitration as they often involve public records and state control. Additionally, patent disputes, which may involve state-granted rights and public interest considerations, are generally considered non-arbitrable.

Serbian courts scrutinise the arbitrability of disputes ex officio, meaning they independently assess whether a dispute is suitable for arbitration, even if the parties do not raise this issue. This ensures that arbitration is only used for appropriate disputes, maintaining the integrity and proper jurisdictional boundaries of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism.

In Serbia, the arbitration law does not specify a rule for determining the law governing the arbitration agreement. Consequently, the determination of the applicable law is subject to interpretation by the courts. There is a notable decision by the Supreme Court of Serbia that suggests the law governing the main contract should also govern the arbitration agreement, particularly when the issue has not been explicitly addressed by the parties. However, this stance has not been definitively established as the standard approach, as the decision did not primarily focus on this issue.

Regarding the enforcement of arbitration agreements, Serbian courts generally respect and uphold these agreements, provided that they are properly invoked by the parties. If a party asserts the existence of an arbitration agreement before engaging in the merits of the case, the court is obligated to enforce the agreement by referring the parties to arbitration. This process ensures that the parties honour their contractual commitments to resolve disputes through arbitration, thereby promoting the autonomy and efficiency of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism.

Serbian law explicitly endorses the doctrine of separability concerning arbitration agreements. As stated in Article 28(2) of the Law on Arbitration, an arbitration clause is considered autonomous and independent from the other provisions of the contract in which it is contained. This means that if a dispute arises regarding the existence or validity of the contract as a whole, the arbitration clause remains unaffected and can still be invoked to resolve the dispute.

Furthermore, Article 28(3) reinforces this principle by clarifying that a declaration of the main contract's invalidity does not automatically invalidate the arbitration clause. This legal framework ensures that the agreement to arbitrate remains enforceable even if other parts of the contract are contested or deemed void. The separability doctrine thus safeguards the parties' agreement to arbitrate and ensures that disputes are resolved in accordance with their chosen method of dispute resolution, irrespective of the overall contract's status.

The parties are free to select any natural person that possesses contractual capacity as an arbitrator. The arbitrator has to comply with the conditions laid out by the parties in their agreement and be independent and impartial in regard to both the parties and the subject of the dispute.

Any person selected as an arbitrator has to disclose any circumstances that could raise doubts as to his/her independence and impartiality. This duty exists from the moment of appointment and extends to the end of the arbitration process.

Serbian law provides a default mechanism for appointing arbitrators if the parties' chosen method fails. In ad hoc arbitrations, where no institutional rules apply, the court of the seat of arbitration steps in to appoint the arbitrator(s). This judicial intervention ensures that the arbitration process can proceed smoothly even if the parties cannot agree on the arbitrator(s).

For arbitrations administered by an institution, such as the Permanent Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia or the Belgrade Arbitration Centre (BAC), the institution's rules dictate the appointment process. Typically, the president of the institution appoints the arbitrator if the parties' method fails. This rule applies equally to multiparty arbitrations, where the involvement of multiple parties may complicate the appointment process. The institutional rules often provide detailed procedures for such scenarios, ensuring a fair and balanced composition of the arbitral tribunal.

In Serbia, courts have a limited but essential role in the selection of arbitrators, primarily stepping in when the parties' agreed method of selection fails and when the arbitration is not administered by an arbitral institution. Courts can appoint arbitrators to ensure that the arbitration process is not stalled due to disagreements or deadlock among the parties. This intervention is crucial in ad hoc arbitrations where no institutional rules are available to fill procedural gaps.

Additionally, courts can play a role in the challenge and removal of arbitrators. If a party challenges an arbitrator based on allegations of bias, lack of independence, or failure to meet the qualifications specified in the arbitration agreement, and if the parties have not agreed on another procedure, the competent court can decide on the challenge. This judicial oversight provides a safeguard against partiality and ensures that the arbitration process adheres to principles of fairness and impartiality.

Serbian arbitration law includes provisions governing the challenge and removal of arbitrators. These default provisions apply unless the parties have agreed otherwise. An arbitrator can be challenged or removed if there are circumstances that raise justifiable doubts about their impartiality or independence. This could include prior relationships with one of the parties, financial interests in the outcome of the dispute, or any other situation that might reasonably lead to a perception of bias.

The process for challenging an arbitrator involves submitting a written request for disqualification within 15 days of learning about the appointment or the grounds for the challenge. This timeframe ensures that challenges are raised promptly and do not unduly delay the arbitration process. If the parties do not agree on the removal of the arbitrator, the competent court can make the final decision. Notably, a party that appointed an arbitrator can only request their removal if the grounds for removal arose after the appointment, ensuring that challenges are not made in bad faith or as a strategy to delay proceedings.

Under Serbian law, arbitrators must uphold the principles of independence and impartiality throughout the arbitration proceedings. Before accepting an appointment, an arbitrator is required to disclose any facts or circumstances that might reasonably cause doubts about their impartiality or independence. This disclosure obligation continues after accepting the mandate, ensuring ongoing transparency and maintaining the parties' confidence in the arbitration process.

The rules of prominent arbitration institutions in Serbia, such as the Permanent Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia and the BAC, mirror these national legal requirements. They mandate that arbitrators submit a written statement affirming their impartiality and independence and disclosing any potential conflicts of interest. This written declaration is a critical part of the arbitrator's appointment process, providing a formal record of the arbitrator's commitment to neutrality and the parties' informed consent to their role in the proceedings.

Under Serbian law, certain disputes are reserved exclusively for the jurisdiction of state courts and cannot be resolved through arbitration. These exclusions are based on public policy considerations and the need to maintain state control over specific matters. Primarily, disputes concerning immovable property, such as issues related to ownership, rights, and transactions involving real estate, are not arbitrable. This is because such disputes often involve public records and require authoritative rulings by state courts to ensure clarity and legal certainty.

Additionally, family law matters, including those related to marriage, divorce, child custody, and inheritance, are also excluded from arbitration. These issues involve personal status and public interest considerations that necessitate judicial oversight to protect the rights and interests of individuals, especially vulnerable parties like children. Furthermore, certain administrative and criminal law matters, which inherently involve state sovereignty and public order, cannot be referred to arbitration.

For a more detailed discussion on arbitrability, please refer to 3.2 Arbitrability.

The principle of competence-competence is expressly recognised in Serbian arbitration law. According to Article 28(1) of the Law on Arbitration, an arbitral tribunal has the authority to determine its own jurisdiction, including any questions regarding the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. This principle allows the tribunal to address challenges to its jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, providing a streamlined and efficient resolution to jurisdictional disputes without immediate recourse to the courts.

In Serbia, courts can intervene in matters of jurisdiction under specific, limited circumstances. If a party initiates court proceedings despite the existence of an arbitration agreement, the court must declare itself incompetent and dismiss the claim upon the opposing party's objection, provided the objection is raised before the discussion of the case's merits begins.

However, the court may intervene and hear the claim if it determines that the arbitration agreement is clearly void, without effect, or incapable of being executed. This intervention ensures that parties are not forced into arbitration when there is a legitimate legal reason preventing it. Serbian courts generally show a willingness to enforce arbitration agreements, reflecting a pro-arbitration stance, but they will exercise their jurisdiction if necessary to ensure fairness and justice.

The timing of the parties’ challenge of a tribunal’s decision on its jurisdiction depends on whether it was made as part of the arbitral awards or as a separate decision. If the tribunal rules on its jurisdiction as a preliminary question, any party can challenge this decision in a time frame of 30 days after it receives the decision on jurisdiction. The proceedings may, in any case, be continued while the challenge is pending before the competent court. There are several decisions of the Supreme Court indicating that not raising a challenge before the courts would not stop a party from later raising a jurisdictional objection as part of its request for setting aside. Therefore, while a party can request judicial control immediately after a ruling on jurisdiction is made, failing to do so does not pre-empt it from raising it after the award is made.

If the tribunal rules on its jurisdiction in the final award, any party can make a jurisdictional objection in its application for the setting aside of the award.

In Serbia, courts review questions of admissibility and jurisdiction de novo, meaning they assess the issues independently and without deference to the arbitral tribunal's findings. This standard of review allows the courts to thoroughly examine the legal and factual basis of the tribunal's decision regarding its jurisdiction and the admissibility of claims. The de novo review ensures that any errors or oversights by the tribunal can be corrected, maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and safeguarding the parties' rights.

This approach reflects a balance between respecting the autonomy of the arbitration process and ensuring that tribunals do not overstep their authority. It provides a robust mechanism for judicial oversight, especially in cases where there are significant questions about the tribunal's jurisdiction.

Serbian courts generally uphold the parties' agreement to arbitrate and show a strong reluctance to allow court proceedings in breach of an arbitration agreement. When a party commences court proceedings in violation of an existing arbitration agreement, the court will typically dismiss the action and refer the parties to arbitration, provided the arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable. This judicial deference to arbitration agreements reflects a pro-arbitration stance, recognising the parties' autonomy in choosing their preferred method of dispute resolution.

However, if the arbitration agreement is found to be void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed, the court may proceed with hearing the case.

Serbian law has a limited scope for extending the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal to third parties who are not signatories to the arbitration agreement. The law explicitly addresses the assignation of claims, stipulating that the arbitration agreement remains binding on the debtor and the assignee to whom the claim is transferred. This provision ensures that the obligation to arbitrate can continue despite the transfer of rights under the contract.

Beyond this specific scenario, there is no explicit legal provision in Serbian law that extends the tribunal's jurisdiction to other third parties, whether domestic or foreign. The extension of an arbitration agreement to non-signatories, such as through doctrines like piercing the corporate veil or group of companies, has not been extensively explored or ruled upon by Serbian courts. As such, any application of these principles would likely depend on the circumstances of the case and the tribunal's interpretation of applicable laws and doctrines.

Under Serbian law, arbitral tribunals have the authority to grant preliminary or interim relief, provided that the parties have not expressly agreed otherwise. This relief can be requested by one of the parties and is granted at the tribunal's discretion if deemed necessary, considering the specifics of the dispute. The power to order interim relief allows the tribunal to take measures aimed at preserving the status quo, safeguarding assets, or preventing actions that could harm the arbitration process or the enforcement of a potential award. 

While Serbian law does not explicitly specify the types of interim relief that can be awarded, the tribunal has broad discretion to tailor the relief to the circumstances of the case, ensuring that the interim measures are appropriate and effective.

Serbian courts can play a crucial role in granting preliminary or interim relief in connection with arbitration proceedings. The courts have the authority to issue such relief both before and during the arbitration process. This judicial intervention is particularly significant when a party seeks urgent measures that require enforcement capabilities beyond the tribunal's reach or when the tribunal has not yet been constituted. 

Serbian law explicitly allows courts to grant interim relief in support of foreign-seated arbitrations. This means that even if the arbitration is not seated in Serbia, the parties can still seek the assistance of Serbian courts for measures such as asset freezing, preservation orders, and other necessary interim measures. The availability of court-ordered interim relief in cross-border contexts underscores Serbia's supportive stance toward international arbitration. 

The types of relief that Serbian courts can grant are not exhaustively listed in the law, providing the judiciary with flexibility to issue orders suited to the specific needs of the case. This can include various forms of injunctive relief, orders for the preservation of assets or evidence, and other measures designed to support the arbitral process and ensure the enforceability of a future award. 

The national legislation of Serbia does not explicitly provide for the use of emergency arbitrators. However, this absence does not preclude the possibility of parties agreeing to an emergency arbitrator mechanism through the rules of an arbitral institution. In such cases, the decisions of emergency arbitrators, typically granted as urgent interim measures before the constitution of the tribunal, are generally binding on the parties. The enforceability of these decisions depends on the agreement of the parties and the institutional rules under which the arbitration is conducted.  

While Serbian law does not specifically address the role of courts concerning emergency arbitrators, general principles suggest that courts retain the power to intervene if necessary. For instance, if the relief sought requires enforcement capabilities beyond the scope of the emergency arbitrator's authority, the courts may provide supplementary support. However, such intervention would typically respect the principle of party autonomy and the arbitral process, avoiding unnecessary interference.

Serbian arbitration law does not explicitly mention the power of arbitral tribunals to order security for costs. However, this power is generally considered to be implied within the broader authority of tribunals to issue preliminary relief.

The arbitration law (based on the UNCITRAL Model Law) contains default procedural rules. It also grants the parties extensive autonomy, allowing them to tailor the procedure in accordance with their preferences. 

Arbitrations seated in Serbia are typically governed by the rules of one of the country's permanent arbitration institutions. The most commonly used rules are the 2016 Rules of the Permanent Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia and the 2014 Rules of the Belgrade Arbitration Centre (Belgrade Rules).

The Law on Arbitration in Serbia does not prescribe a rigid procedural framework, allowing significant flexibility in how the arbitration is conducted. The parties have the liberty to agree on the procedural rules that will govern the arbitration, including the sequence and nature of procedural steps. If the parties do not specify otherwise, the arbitral tribunal has the authority to determine the appropriate procedure. 

The arbitration law leaves a possibility for the tribunal to conduct the procedure without an oral hearing, if the parties have not agreed otherwise, or if one of the parties does not request an oral hearing to be held. 

Under Serbian law, arbitrators possess a range of powers to manage and adjudicate the arbitration process. Key powers include: 

• Deciding on Jurisdiction: Arbitrators have the authority to rule on their own jurisdiction, including the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. 
• Granting Interim Relief: They can issue orders for interim measures to protect the interests of the parties during the arbitration. 
• Conducting Proceedings: Arbitrators have the discretion to determine the procedure of the arbitration, including the admissibility, relevance, and weight of evidence. 
• Deciding on the Merits: The tribunal is responsible for making the final decision on the substantive issues of the case. 

In terms of duties, arbitrators must ensure fairness and impartiality throughout the proceedings. They are obligated to treat all parties equitably and to provide each party with a full opportunity to present their case. Additionally, arbitrators must maintain independence from the parties and avoid any conflicts of interest, ensuring that the arbitration is conducted in a fair and unbiased manner.

Serbian arbitration law does not impose specific qualifications or restrictions on who may represent parties in arbitration proceedings. Any person with contractual capacity can act as a legal representative, regardless of nationality or professional qualifications. This inclusivity applies to both domestic and international arbitrations, allowing parties the flexibility to choose representatives based on their specific needs and preferences, including expertise in a particular area of law or familiarity with the subject matter of the dispute. 

The Serbian arbitration law specifically mentions only witnesses and experts. Both witnesses and experts are, if the parties do not agree otherwise, examined during the oral hearings. 

The arbitral tribunal can also ask the court’s assistance in taking evidence of performing actions that are not available to the arbitral tribunal. In case the tribunal requests a court to assist in taking evidence, the competent court would go through the procedure in accordance with the law that governs the procedure before the state courts.

There is not a default set of rules for evidence to be applied to arbitration proceedings seated in Serbia. In practice, it is usual for the tribunals to incorporate the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration through the procedural orders. 

Arbitral tribunals in Serbia do not possess inherent powers of compulsion to enforce the production of documents or the attendance of witnesses. However, they can request state courts' assistance in taking evidence. When a party refuses to produce certain evidence, the tribunal can draw adverse inferences, potentially affecting the tribunal's assessment of the case's merits. 

• Parties: Tribunals can request parties to produce documents or provide witness testimony, but they cannot enforce these requests directly. Non-compliance may result in adverse inferences or other procedural consequences. 
• Non-parties: Similarly, arbitral tribunals cannot compel non-parties to participate in the proceedings. However, the tribunal can request a competent state court to summon witnesses or order the production of documents by non-parties. The court's involvement ensures that the procedural requirements are met, and the necessary evidence is collected. 

In summary, while arbitral tribunals in Serbia lack direct powers of compulsion, they can leverage state court assistance to ensure the effective gathering of evidence. This mechanism ensures that the arbitration process remains fair and that the tribunal has access to the necessary information to make a well-informed decision.

The Serbian arbitration law does not have a provision that proceedings must be confidential. 

Likewise, there is no such rule in the rules of the Permanent Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia. 

The BAC rules, however, provide that the BAC, the parties to the proceedings, arbitrators, witnesses and experts are required to keep the proceedings and the arbitral awards confidential. 

An arbitral award is made in written form and needs to be signed by the arbitrators. The award is made after discussion within the tribunal and requires a majority of votes. The arbitral award is valid even if signed by the majority of the arbitrators (if the refusal of signature is determined in the decision). 

The award contains a reasoning if the parties have not excluded it by agreement. The arbitral awards always specify the date and the place in which they are rendered.

Serbian law does not prescribe the types of remedies that are available to the tribunal. However, punitive damages would be contrary to the basic principles of Serbian law and would therefore, likely, not be available to the tribunal. 

The Serbian arbitration law does not deal with the issue of recovery of interest. Therefore, the recovery of interest will depend on the law applicable to the merits of the case. 

The general legal framework for the costs of the proceedings is that the parties split the costs of arbitration and pay them in advance. The arbitration law specifies that arbitral awards must contain a decision on the costs of the arbitration. This decision will specify the total costs and will also allocate them between the parties, taking into account all circumstances of the case, with an emphasis on the outcome of the proceedings. 

The Serbian arbitration law, as mentioned, is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law - as such, it contains the set-aside grounds similar to those of the Model Law. Therefore, a party may seek to set aside an arbitral award on the following grounds: 

• the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of Serbia; 
• the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; 
• a dispute that was not covered by the arbitration agreement was resolved by an arbitration decision or the decision exceeded the limits of that agreement. If it is determined that the part of the decision that exceeded the limits of the arbitration agreement can be separated from the rest of the decision, only that part of the decision can be annulled; 
• the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure did not comply with the arbitration agreement (ie, with the rules of the permanent arbitration institution entrusted with the organisation of the arbitration) unless the agreement conflicts with a provision of arbitration law. If no agreement exists, the composition of the tribunal or the procedures must align with the applicable arbitration law; 
• the arbitration decision is based on a false testimony of a witness or an expert or is based on a falsified document or the decision was made as a result of a criminal act by the arbitrator or a party, if these reasons are proven by a final judgment; 
• the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of Serbia; 
• the award is in conflict with the public policy of Serbia. 

Requests for setting aside are made with the competent court - the Basic Court or the Commercial Court, depending on the subject matter and the parties involved. In any case, the parties can further appeal against a decision in the set-aside proceedings to a court of higher instance. Finally, under certain conditions an appeal with the Supreme Court of Serbia is also possible.

The parties cannot agree to exclude or expand the scope of an appeal. 

The courts do not re-examine the merits of the case in set-aside proceedings. The judicial review is limited by the grounds for setting aside specified in the arbitration law. The grounds for setting aside are the ones mentioned in 11.1. Grounds for Appeal. 

Serbia has signed and ratified the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, with no reservations. 

Domestic arbitral awards are equated to final and binding court judgements - as such, they are immediately enforceable and go through the same procedure as a judgment. A foreign arbitral award needs to go through the procedure for recognition and enforcement. There are two possible approaches to the procedure. One involves separate procedures for recognition and enforcement; the other involves entering an enforcement procedure before recognition. 

If recognition is sought as the main request, the recognition procedure can result in the court either approving or refusing recognition. The recognition procedure is a non-litigation procedure. 

There is also a possibility of seeking enforcement on the basis of a foreign arbitral award that is not yet recognised. In this case, recognition is a preliminary issue that the court must rule on before continuing the enforcement proceedings. Even if the court decides that an arbitral award cannot be recognised, this part of the decision does not have the res judicata effect. In practical terms, a party can start the recognition procedure again, notwithstanding an existing ruling of non-recognition as a preliminary issue. Therefore, this is the standard way of enforcing a foreign arbitral award in practice. 

The New York Convention’s provisions apply to the recognition of foreign arbitral awards. It is possible to appeal against a first instance decision on either the recognition or the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. 

Once recognised, the arbitral award has the same status as a final and enforceable court judgment. 

If setting-aside proceedings are initiated in another state, the Serbian courts do not have a duty to suspend the recognition and/or enforcement proceedings, but they may decide to do so at the request of one of the parties. 

The state cannot raise a defence of sovereign immunity at the enforcement stage.

The courts may only control the arbitral award in respect of the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement as laid out in the New York Convention. 

Public order, as a ground for the refusal of recognition and/or enforcement of a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention, is interpreted to mean the key principles of the Serbian public order - not any mandatory norm of Serbian laws. 

Serbian law does not allow for class action arbitration or group arbitration. The general notion of arbitrability (see 3.2. Arbitrability) applies to class action and group arbitrations as well. 

There are no specific formal ethical codes or professional standards exclusively governing arbitration proceedings in Serbia. However, Serbian attorneys, whether acting as counsel or arbitrators, are generally bound by the Code of Professional Ethics of the Bar Association of Serbia. This code establishes ethical guidelines and standards of professional conduct that must be adhered to by legal practitioners. 

Additionally, it is common practice to incorporate the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration as part of the procedural framework governing the arbitration. These guidelines provide comprehensive standards for ensuring impartiality and independence in international arbitration. The inclusion of these guidelines can be agreed upon by the parties or mandated by the arbitral tribunal through a procedural order. 

For arbitrations conducted under the Belgrade Arbitration Centre (BAC), the BAC Code of Ethics for Arbitrators also applies. This code provides specific ethical guidelines for arbitrators, emphasising integrity, impartiality, and fairness throughout the arbitral process.

Serbian law does not currently have any specific provisions or regulations concerning third-party funding in arbitration. As a result, there are no formal restrictions or guidelines governing the use of third-party funding in arbitration proceedings seated in Serbia. However, the absence of explicit regulation does not preclude the parties from utilising third-party funding arrangements, provided that they comply with general legal and ethical standards applicable to contractual relationships and financial transactions. 

The arbitration law in Serbia does not explicitly address the issue of consolidation of separate arbitral proceedings. Nonetheless, the possibility of consolidation is not inherently precluded under Serbian law. Given that consolidation is permissible under Serbian civil procedure law for litigation, it stands to reason that similar principles could be applied in arbitration. For instance, if all parties involved in the separate proceedings consent to consolidation and the consolidation would facilitate a more efficient and equitable resolution of the disputes, it may be allowed. However, in the absence of specific provisions, the feasibility and procedure for consolidation would largely depend on the arbitration agreement and the tribunal's discretion. 

In general, only signatories are bound by the arbitration agreement and the ensuing arbitral award. 

Serbian law contains an explicit rule only for the assignation of claims. In that case, it specifies that the arbitration agreement remains in force and binds the debtor and the party that the claim is transferred to. The courts have not yet dealt with other ways of extending the subjective scope of the arbitration agreement. Therefore, while it would be possible to apply the group of companies doctrine or similar theories, there is, as of today, no practice to indicate whether this would be acceptable to the courts in Serbia.