Serbia – and Belgrade in particular – has emerged as a leading centre for international arbitration in the Balkan region. The country boasts a dynamic and well-established arbitration community, comprising distinguished practitioners, academics, and institutional representatives who actively contribute to the development of arbitral practice and scholarship. Numerous conferences, workshops, and specialised events dedicated to arbitration are organised annually, reinforcing Serbia’s position as a regional hub for dispute resolution.

Arbitration as a preferred method of dispute settlement continues to steadily expand, reflecting growing confidence in both international and domestic arbitral frameworks, even though traditional court litigation remains predominant. Serbian parties increasingly recognise the efficiency and neutrality of arbitration, and they frequently opt for reputable international institutions such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the Vienna International Arbitration Centre (VIAC). At the same time, a notable number of cross-border disputes are administered under the auspices of local institutions, including the Belgrade Arbitration Center (BAC) and the Permanent Arbitration at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia (PA CCIS), both of which apply modern procedural rules and uphold high standards of impartiality and expertise.

This growing institutional capacity, combined with Serbia’s strategic geographic position and supportive legal framework aligned with international standards, firmly establishes Belgrade as one of the most attractive and credible arbitration venues in South-East Europe.

In recent years, international arbitration activity in Serbia has been particularly prominent in the construction and infrastructure sectors. This trend primarily stems from the conclusion of large-scale international projects that were initiated or ongoing during the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequently affected by the economic repercussions of the Russia–Ukraine conflict.

As these projects near completion, numerous disputes have arisen concerning price adjustments, extensions of time, and claims for additional costs, driven by the extraordinary fluctuations in global supply chains and the surge in prices of construction materials, fuel, and transportation. These circumstances have prompted both contractors and employers to invoke hardship and price-adjustment clauses, or to pursue compensation through arbitral proceedings where contractual mechanisms proved insufficient.

The prevalence of arbitration in this industry also reflects the widespread use of International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) contracts and other international standard forms that designate arbitration ‒ often before institutions such as the ICC, VIAC, or the BAC ‒ as the preferred dispute resolution method. Given the technical complexity, cross-border financing structures, and multinational participation typical of such projects, arbitration remains the most effective and neutral forum for resolving these disputes.

In Serbia, international arbitration proceedings are most commonly administered by two well-established institutions: the PA CCIS and the BAC. Both institutions have earned recognition for their modern procedural rules, alignment with international arbitration standards, and professional case management. They are frequently chosen in contracts involving both domestic and foreign parties, particularly in sectors such as construction, energy, and international trade.

The PA benefits from its long-standing institutional framework and association with the CCIS, which provides administrative stability and a broad network of commercial stakeholders. The BAC, on the other hand, is known for its independent structure, flexible procedures, and engagement of a new generation of arbitration practitioners and scholars, further contributing to Serbia’s reputation as a credible arbitral seat in the region.

In Serbia, there are no separate or specialised arbitration courts; however, specific judicial bodies are vested with jurisdiction over arbitration-related matters. Proceedings for the setting aside of arbitral awards, as well as for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, are conducted before the Higher Courts or the Commercial Courts as courts of first instance, depending on the nature of the dispute.

Appeals are heard by the Court of Appeal or the Commercial Court of Appeal, while the Supreme Court of Serbia serves as the final instance competent to review decisions rendered in such proceedings.

This structure ensures that arbitration-related cases are adjudicated by judges with substantial experience in commercial and civil law, providing a predictable and stable judicial framework that supports Serbia’s growing reputation as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.

The arbitration framework in Serbia is primarily governed by the Law on Arbitration (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No 46/2006), which is largely modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. By adopting this approach, Serbia has positioned itself as a Model Law jurisdiction, ensuring that its legislative framework is consistent with widely recognised international arbitration standards and best practices.

The Serbian Law on Arbitration incorporates the core principles of the UNCITRAL Model Law, including party autonomy, equal treatment of parties, minimal court interference, and the enforceability of arbitral awards. This alignment provides both domestic and foreign parties with a predictable, transparent, and efficient procedural environment, reinforcing Serbia’s attractiveness as a seat of arbitration in the region.

While the Serbian legislation generally adheres closely to the UNCITRAL Model Law, deviations are minimal and primarily reflect adjustments to the local procedural system. These include certain jurisdictional and procedural provisions tailored to the structure of Serbian courts and the interaction between arbitral and judicial proceedings. Overall, the national framework maintains a high degree of compatibility with international arbitration practice, ensuring legal certainty and confidence for users of arbitration seated in Serbia.

There have been no amendments to the Serbian Law on Arbitration in the past year, nor are any legislative changes currently under consideration. The existing framework has proven to be well aligned with international standards and continues to provide a stable and predictable legal environment for both domestic and international arbitration.

At present, there are no official announcements or indications of pending legislative initiatives that would materially affect the arbitration landscape in Serbia. The current focus remains on the consistent application and further promotion of arbitration practice through institutional development, professional training, and broader use of arbitration in specialised sectors such as construction, energy, and international commerce.

Under Serbian law, an arbitration agreement must be concluded in written form in order to be valid and enforceable. This requirement is interpreted broadly and can be satisfied in several ways. The arbitration agreement may be incorporated as a clause within the main contract or executed as a separate agreement.

The requirement of written form is deemed to be fulfilled even when the agreement is concluded through an exchange of correspondence ‒ such as letters, faxes, emails, or other electronic communications ‒ that provide sufficient evidence of the parties’ mutual consent, regardless of whether such communications bear signatures.

Furthermore, an arbitration agreement is also considered valid where a written contract between the parties refers to another document containing an arbitration clause, provided that the reference is clear and demonstrates the parties’ intention to incorporate that clause by reference. This flexible approach ensures that the principle of party autonomy is respected while maintaining legal certainty in the formation and enforcement of arbitration agreements.

Under Serbian law, the concept of arbitrability is central to determining which disputes may be resolved through arbitration. As a general rule, only disputes involving rights that the parties may freely dispose of are considered arbitrable. This principle reflects the understanding that arbitration is appropriate for private law disputes where party autonomy can operate without limitation.

Conversely, certain matters are excluded from arbitration due to their public law character or the requirement for judicial oversight. Non-arbitrable disputes include those concerning personal status and family law (such as divorce, parental rights, or child custody), as well as property rights over immovable assets when such rights are subject to registration in public records or otherwise involve state supervision. Similarly, disputes concerning patent rights or other state-granted monopolies are generally regarded as non-arbitrable because they implicate public interests and administrative authority.

Serbian courts examine the issue of arbitrability ex officio, meaning they independently assess whether a dispute falls within the permissible scope of arbitration, even if neither party raises the issue. This judicial scrutiny ensures that arbitration remains limited to disputes suitable for private resolution, thereby maintaining a balance between party autonomy and the mandatory jurisdiction of state courts.

Serbian arbitration law does not expressly determine which law governs the arbitration agreement, leaving this matter to judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court of Serbia has indicated that, in the absence of a specific choice by the parties, the law governing the main contract should also apply to the arbitration agreement, though this approach is not yet firmly established.

Courts in Serbia generally adopt a pro-arbitration approach and consistently enforce arbitration agreements when properly invoked. If a party raises the existence of such an agreement before addressing the merits, the court must refer the parties to arbitration. This practice reinforces party autonomy and ensures that arbitration remains an effective and respected mechanism for dispute resolution.

Serbian law expressly recognises the doctrine of separability of arbitration agreements. Under Article 28(2) of the Law on Arbitration, an arbitration clause is deemed independent from the rest of the contract in which it is contained. Accordingly, even if the main contract is alleged or found to be invalid, the arbitration clause remains valid and may still be relied upon to resolve the dispute.

Article 28(3) further clarifies that the invalidity of the principal contract does not automatically extend to the arbitration clause. This ensures that the parties’ agreement to arbitrate remains valid and enforceable, preserving their chosen method of dispute resolution regardless of the contract’s overall validity.

Under Serbian law, party autonomy in the selection of arbitrators is broadly recognised. The parties are free to appoint any natural person who has full contractual capacity, provided that the individual meets the qualifications agreed upon by the parties and is both independent and impartial with respect to the parties and the dispute.

An appointed arbitrator is required to promptly disclose any circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts about their independence or impartiality. This obligation arises at the time of appointment and continues throughout the entire arbitration process, ensuring transparency and the integrity of the proceedings.

Serbian law provides a default mechanism for the appointment of arbitrators when the parties’ agreed method fails. In ad hoc arbitrations, where no institutional rules apply, the court at the seat of arbitration will appoint the arbitrator or the entire tribunal, ensuring that the proceedings can continue without undue delay.

In institutional arbitrations, such as those administered by the PA CCIS or the BAC, the respective institutional rules govern the appointment process. If the parties fail to reach an agreement, the president or another designated authority of the institution will make the appointment.

The same approach applies to multiparty arbitrations, where institutional rules typically include specific provisions to address the complexities of appointing arbitrators among several parties, ensuring a balanced and impartial composition of the arbitral tribunal.

In Serbia, courts may intervene in the selection of arbitrators only in exceptional circumstances and primarily to ensure the continuation of the arbitration process. Judicial intervention arises when the parties’ agreed method of appointment fails or when an ad hoc arbitration lacks institutional rules to address such a situation. In these cases, the competent court at the seat of arbitration may appoint one or more arbitrators to prevent procedural deadlock.

Courts also have a role in resolving challenges to arbitrators. If a party contests an arbitrator’s appointment due to alleged bias, lack of independence, or failure to meet the agreed qualifications, and no alternative procedure is in place, the competent court may rule on the challenge.

This judicial authority is limited to procedural oversight and does not extend to the merits of the dispute. The court’s role is therefore confined to preserving the integrity, impartiality, and efficiency of the arbitral process while respecting the principle of party autonomy.

Serbian arbitration law provides clear rules for the challenge and removal of arbitrators, which apply unless the parties have agreed on a different procedure. An arbitrator may be challenged if circumstances exist that raise justifiable doubts about their impartiality or independence. Such circumstances may include prior professional or personal relationships with a party, a financial interest in the outcome of the dispute, or any other factor that could reasonably create an appearance of bias.

A party seeking to challenge an arbitrator must submit a written request for disqualification within 15 days of becoming aware of either the appointment or the grounds for the challenge. This requirement ensures that challenges are raised promptly and do not obstruct the progress of the arbitration.

If the parties cannot reach an agreement on the removal of the arbitrator, the competent court may rule on the challenge. Importantly, a party that has appointed an arbitrator may only seek their removal if the grounds for disqualification arose after the appointment, thereby preventing misuse of the challenge process and ensuring the integrity and efficiency of the proceedings.

Under Serbian law, arbitrators are required to maintain both independence and impartiality for the duration of the arbitration proceedings. Before accepting an appointment, an arbitrator must disclose any circumstances that could reasonably give rise to doubts regarding their impartiality or independence. This duty of disclosure continues throughout the proceedings, ensuring transparency and preserving the integrity of the arbitral process.

The rules of Serbia’s main arbitration institutions, including the PA CCIS and the BAC, reflect these same principles. Arbitrators are required to provide a written declaration confirming their impartiality and independence, as well as to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. This declaration forms an integral part of the appointment process and serves to protect the parties’ confidence in the fairness and neutrality of the tribunal.

The principle of competence-competence (kompetenz-kompetenz) is expressly recognised under Serbian arbitration law. Pursuant to Article 28(1) of the Law on Arbitration, an arbitral tribunal is empowered to decide on its own jurisdiction, including matters concerning the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. This rule enables the tribunal to consider jurisdictional objections as a preliminary issue, ensuring that such disputes are resolved efficiently within the arbitral process before any potential court involvement.

In Serbia, judicial intervention in jurisdictional matters is permitted only in narrowly defined situations. When a party files a court action despite the existence of an arbitration agreement, the court must declare itself without jurisdiction and dismiss the case if the opposing party raises an objection before the discussion of the merits begins.

Nevertheless, the court may assume jurisdiction if it finds that the arbitration agreement is manifestly null, ineffective, or incapable of being performed. This safeguard prevents parties from being compelled to arbitrate where a valid legal impediment exists. While Serbian courts generally maintain a pro-arbitration approach and uphold arbitration agreements, they will step in when necessary to protect the integrity of the proceedings and ensure fairness.

The timing for challenging a tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction in Serbia depends on whether the ruling is issued as a separate decision or as part of the final award. When the tribunal determines its jurisdiction as a preliminary matter, either party may challenge that decision before the competent court within 30 days of receiving it. The arbitral proceedings may nevertheless continue while the court review is pending.

Several Supreme Court decisions suggest that a party’s failure to challenge the tribunal’s preliminary jurisdictional decision does not preclude it from raising the same objection later in a set-aside application. Therefore, while judicial review is available immediately after the tribunal rules on its jurisdiction, a party retains the right to contest jurisdiction following the issuance of the final award.

If the tribunal addresses jurisdiction within the final award itself, the appropriate moment for a party to raise the jurisdictional objection is in the course of seeking annulment of that award.

The timing for challenging a tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction in Serbia depends on whether the ruling is issued as a separate decision or as part of the final award. When the tribunal determines its jurisdiction as a preliminary matter, either party may challenge that decision before the competent court within 30 days of receiving it. The arbitral proceedings may nevertheless continue while the court review is pending.

Several Supreme Court decisions suggest that a party’s failure to challenge the tribunal’s preliminary jurisdictional decision does not preclude it from raising the same objection later in a set-aside application. Therefore, while judicial review is available immediately after the tribunal rules on its jurisdiction, a party retains the right to contest jurisdiction following the issuance of the final award.

If the tribunal addresses jurisdiction within the final award itself, the appropriate moment for a party to raise the jurisdictional objection is in the course of seeking annulment of that award.

In Serbia, courts examine issues of jurisdiction and admissibility de novo, meaning they conduct an independent review without deferring to the arbitral tribunal’s conclusions. This standard enables the courts to fully reassess both the legal and factual foundations of the tribunal’s determination on jurisdiction and admissibility. By doing so, the judiciary can correct any potential errors or omissions, thereby upholding the integrity of the legal system and protecting the parties’ procedural rights. This strikes a balance between respecting the autonomy of arbitration and ensuring that arbitral tribunals remain within the limits of their authority. It therefore provides a strong framework for judicial oversight in cases involving substantial questions regarding the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Serbian courts generally respect and enforce the parties’ choice to resolve their disputes through arbitration, demonstrating a consistent reluctance to entertain court proceedings initiated in breach of an arbitration agreement. When one party brings a claim before a court despite a valid and enforceable arbitration clause, the court will ordinarily dismiss the case and refer the parties to arbitration. This practice underscores Serbia’s pro-arbitration approach and its recognition of party autonomy as a cornerstone of dispute resolution. Nonetheless, if the arbitration agreement is determined to be null, ineffective, or incapable of being performed, the court retains the authority to hear the dispute.

Serbian law provides only limited grounds for extending the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal to third parties who are not signatories to the arbitration agreement. The legislation specifically regulates the assignment of claims, stating that the arbitration agreement continues to bind both the debtor and the assignee to whom the claim has been transferred. This ensures that the duty to arbitrate survives the transfer of contractual rights. Apart from this narrowly defined situation, Serbian law contains no explicit provisions permitting the extension of arbitral jurisdiction to other third parties, whether domestic or foreign. Doctrines commonly relied upon in international arbitration, such as the “group of companies” theory or piercing the corporate veil, have not yet been substantively developed or tested before Serbian courts. Consequently, the application of these principles would depend on the particular facts of each case and the arbitral tribunal’s interpretation of relevant legal doctrines.

Under Serbian law, arbitral tribunals are empowered to grant preliminary or interim measures unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise. Such relief may be sought by either party and is granted at the tribunal’s discretion when necessary in light of the circumstances of the dispute. The tribunal’s authority to issue interim measures serves to preserve the status quo, protect assets, and prevent actions that might jeopardise the arbitral process or the enforceability of a future award. Although Serbian law does not provide an exhaustive list of available interim measures, tribunals enjoy broad discretion to shape the relief according to the needs of the case, ensuring that the measures imposed are both suitable and effective.

Serbian courts play an important supportive role in providing preliminary or interim relief in connection with arbitration proceedings. They have the power to issue such measures both before and during the arbitration, ensuring effective protection of the parties’ rights ‒ particularly in urgent situations requiring enforcement tools that exceed the arbitral tribunal’s authority or when the tribunal has not yet been constituted.

Serbian legislation expressly permits courts to grant interim measures in aid of arbitrations seated outside Serbia. As a result, parties involved in foreign-seated proceedings may request assistance from Serbian courts for remedies such as asset freezes, preservation orders, or other interim protections. This demonstrates Serbia’s generally arbitration-friendly and co-operative stance towards international proceedings.

The types of relief that Serbian courts may grant are not exhaustively defined by statute, which provides them with the flexibility to adapt their orders to the needs of each case. Available measures may include various forms of injunctive relief, orders for the preservation of assets or evidence, and other protective steps designed to safeguard the arbitral process and secure the effectiveness of a potential award.

Although Serbian law does not explicitly recognise the concept of emergency arbitrators, this does not prevent parties from incorporating such mechanisms through the procedural rules of arbitral institutions. In practice, emergency arbitrators may issue urgent interim measures prior to the constitution of the tribunal, and their decisions are typically binding on the parties pursuant to the agreed institutional framework. The enforceability of these decisions depends on both the parties’ consent and the rules governing the arbitration.

While Serbian legislation does not directly regulate the interaction between courts and emergency arbitrators, general principles indicate that courts retain residual authority to intervene where necessary ‒ particularly when enforcement or coercive powers are required. Nonetheless, any such judicial involvement would generally be exercised with caution, in line with the principles of party autonomy and minimal interference in the arbitral process.

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.

Serbia’s arbitration framework, modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law, provides default procedural rules while granting the parties broad autonomy to design the proceedings according to their own preferences. This flexibility allows parties to adapt the arbitral process to the nature and complexity of their dispute. Arbitrations seated in Serbia are most often conducted under the procedural rules of one of the country’s permanent arbitral institutions. The two most frequently applied sets of rules are the 2016 Rules of the PA CCIS (the “PA CCIS Rules 2016”) and the 2014 Rules of the BAC (the “Belgrade Rules”).

The Serbian Arbitration Act does not impose a strict procedural framework, instead affording substantial flexibility in how arbitral proceedings are conducted. The parties are free to determine the procedural rules governing the arbitration, including the order and form of procedural steps. In the absence of such an agreement, the arbitral tribunal is empowered to establish the procedure it considers appropriate. The law also allows the tribunal to proceed without holding an oral hearing, provided the parties have not agreed otherwise or unless one of the parties expressly requests that a hearing be conducted. This approach promotes procedural efficiency while preserving the parties’ right to a fair and balanced process.

Under the Serbian Arbitration Act, the authority of an arbitral tribunal is clearly defined to ensure an effective and just proceeding. The tribunal’s core competencies encompass are as follows.

• Kompetenz-kompetenz: the tribunal is empowered to make an initial determination on its own jurisdiction, assessing the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement.
• Provisional measures: to safeguard the integrity of the process, arbitrators may order interim relief, preserving the status quo until a final award is rendered.
• Procedural discretion: the tribunal holds broad discretion to steer the procedural course of the arbitration, ruling on the suitability and materiality of all evidence presented.
• Final adjudication: the tribunal is charged with resolving the substantive dispute by issuing a binding decision on the merits of the case.

Alongside these powers, arbitrators are bound by stringent duties. They must conduct proceedings with unwavering impartiality and independence, guaranteeing equal treatment and a reasonable opportunity for each party to articulate its position. This requires a continuous commitment to avoiding conflicts of interest and upholding the fundamental principles of procedural fairness.

Serbian arbitration law adopts a principle of liberal party representation, imposing no statutory prerequisites regarding the professional credentials or nationality of a party’s representative. The sole requirement is that the individual possesses the legal capacity to contract. This principle of open representation is applicable uniformly in domestic and international proceedings, affording parties broad autonomy to select a representative based on criteria they deem most relevant, such as specialised knowledge or industry experience.

The Serbian Arbitration Act expressly identifies witnesses and experts as evidentiary sources, stipulating that their examination, absent a contrary agreement by the parties, is to be conducted within the forum of the oral hearing. Furthermore, an arbitral tribunal is vested with the authority to seek judicial assistance for the performance of evidentiary acts that fall beyond its own powers. In such instances, the competent court executes the request in accordance with the rules of civil procedure applicable to proceedings before 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 International Bar Association’s (IBA) Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration through the procedural orders.

Arbitral tribunals in Serbia operate without inherent powers of compulsion and, consequently, cannot independently enforce the production of documents or secure the attendance of uncooperative witnesses. To mitigate this limitation, the procedural framework permits tribunals to seek the assistance of state courts in the taking of evidence. In practice, this distinction yields different approaches for parties and non-parties to the arbitration. While a tribunal may direct a party to disclose evidence or present witness testimony, a failure to comply cannot be directly enforced by the tribunal. Instead, the tribunal is empowered to draw adverse inferences from such non-compliance, which may materially influence its ultimate assessment on the merits. Conversely, with respect to non-parties, the tribunal possesses no authority to issue binding orders. The sole mechanism for compelling evidence from a third party is through a formal request to a competent state court, which will then employ its coercive powers under the rules governing civil procedure. In summary, while the arbitral tribunal itself lacks direct coercive authority, it may leverage judicial assistance to facilitate a comprehensive evidentiary record, thereby safeguarding the integrity and efficacy of the arbitral process.

The Serbian arbitration framework does not statutorily impose a general duty of confidentiality upon arbitral proceedings. This principle of non-confidentiality is similarly reflected in the PA CCIS Rules 2016. In contrast, the Belgrade Rules establish an explicit and affirmative obligation of confidentiality, binding the institution itself, the parties, arbitrators, witnesses, and experts to maintain the secrecy of both the proceedings and the final award.

An arbitral award must be rendered in writing and requires the signatures of the arbitrators. The decision is reached following the tribunal’s deliberations and is determined by a majority vote. The award retains its validity even if signed only by a majority of the tribunal, provided the decision itself records the reason for any missing signature. Unless the parties have agreed to exclude it, the award must contain the reasoning upon which it is based. All arbitral awards must unambiguously state the date on which and the place at which they are made.

The Serbian legal framework does not contain an exhaustive statutory enumeration of the remedies available to an arbitral tribunal. Notwithstanding this procedural latitude, the granting of punitive damages would be considered contrary to the fundamental principles of Serbian substantive law. Consequently, a tribunal seated in Serbia would likely lack the juridical capacity to award such damages.

The Serbian Arbitration Act does not substantively regulate the recovery of interest, thereby rendering the matter contingent upon the applicable law governing the merits of the dispute. Regarding the costs of the proceedings, the default framework provides that the parties shall share the arbitration costs and advance them accordingly. The law expressly mandates that every arbitral award must include a decision on costs, which specifies the total amount and allocates it between the parties. This allocation is conducted at the tribunal’s discretion, considering all relevant circumstances of the case, with particular regard to the outcome of the proceedings.

As noted, Serbian arbitration law is modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law and therefore reflects its set-aside grounds. A party may apply to annul an arbitral award in accordance with Article 58 of the Serbian Arbitration Act, on the following bases.

• Invalid arbitration agreement: the arbitration agreement is invalid under the law chosen by the parties, or, failing such choice, under Serbian law.
• Lack of notification or opportunity to present the case: the applicant was not duly notified of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case.
• Exceeding the scope of the arbitration agreement: the tribunal decided a dispute not covered by the arbitration agreement, or ruled beyond the scope of that agreement. Where the part of the award exceeding the agreement can be separated, only that portion may be set aside.
• Improper composition of the tribunal or procedure: the composition of the tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement or, where applicable, the rules of the permanent arbitral institution administering the arbitration – unless the agreement conflicts with mandatory provisions of Serbian arbitration law, or, in the absence of agreement, the composition or procedure did not comply with the law.
• Fraud or criminal conduct: the award is based on perjured witness or expert testimony, falsified documents, or was procured through a criminal offence committed by an arbitrator or a party, provided such grounds are established by a final judgment.
• Non-arbitrable subject matter: the subject matter of the dispute is not arbitrable under Serbian law.
• Contrary to public policy: the award is contrary to Serbian public policy.

Applications for setting aside must be filed with the competent court, either the Basic Court or the Commercial Court, depending on the subject matter and the parties. A decision rendered in set-aside proceedings may be appealed to a higher court, and, in certain circumstances, a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Serbia is also available.

Under Serbian law, parties may not alter the scope of appeal or challenge.

The courts do not reexamine the merits of the case in set-aside proceedings. The judicial review is limited by the grounds for setting-aside laid out in the arbitration law (Article 58 of the Serbian Arbitration Act).

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 treated as final and binding court judgments; as such, they are immediately enforceable and follow the same procedure as a court judgment.

A foreign arbitral award must undergo the procedure for recognition and enforcement. There are two possible approaches to the procedure: one involves separate procedures for recognition and enforcement, and the other entails 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.

It is also possible to seek enforcement 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 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 approach for 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.

Serbia is a signatory to the New York Convention. Hence, the courts may review an arbitral award solely on the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement set out in the New York Convention.

In this context, public policy, as a ground for refusing recognition and/or enforcement of a foreign arbitral award under the Convention, is construed narrowly. It refers to the fundamental principles of Serbian public order, rather than encompassing every mandatory provision of Serbian law.

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

There are no ethical codes or professional standards in Serbia that apply exclusively to arbitration. Serbian lawyers, whether serving as counsel or acting as arbitrators, are subject to the Code of Professional Ethics of the Bar Association of Serbia, which sets out binding standards of professional conduct.

In practice, it is also common for the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration to be incorporated into the procedural framework. These Guidelines provide detailed standards to safeguard impartiality and independence in international arbitration, and may be adopted either by agreement of the parties or by order of the arbitral tribunal.

For arbitrations administered by the BAC, the BAC Code of Ethics for Arbitrators is also applicable, providing specific ethical rules with a focus on integrity, impartiality and fairness throughout the arbitral process.

Serbian law does not at present contain specific provisions addressing third-party funding in arbitration. Consequently, there are no formal restrictions or guidelines governing the use of such funding in arbitral proceedings seated in Serbia. Nonetheless, the lack of explicit regulation does not prevent parties from entering into third-party funding arrangements, provided these comply with the general legal and ethical standards applicable to contractual relations and financial transactions.

Serbian arbitration law does not contain express provisions on the consolidation of separate arbitral proceedings. However, such consolidation is not, in principle, excluded under Serbian law.

Since Serbian civil procedure permits consolidation in litigation, it is arguable that analogous principles could be applied in arbitration.

Where all parties to the separate proceedings consent, and where consolidation would promote a more efficient and fair resolution of the disputes, it may be permitted. In the absence of explicit statutory regulation, however, the possibility and manner of consolidation will primarily depend on the parties’ arbitration agreement and the arbitral tribunal’s discretion.

As a rule, only the signatories to an arbitration agreement are bound by its terms and by any subsequent arbitral award.

Under Serbian law, there is an express provision solely in relation to the assignment of claims contained in Article 13 of the Serbian Arbitration Act (“Transfer”). In cases of both contractual assignment (cession) and statutory assignment (ex lege subrogation), the arbitration agreement remains valid and continues to bind both the debtor and the assignee of the claim. Beyond this, the courts have not yet addressed other possible extensions of the arbitration agreement’s subjective scope. Accordingly, although doctrines such as the group of companies theory might, in principle, be invoked, there is currently no judicial practice in Serbia to suggest that such an approach would be recognised.

In addition, the national court in Serbia is obliged to respect the existence of an arbitration agreement, if it determines that a valid agreement is in place and extends over the parties, irrespective of the nationality of the signatory parties. To that end, Serbian courts must refer the parties to arbitration in accordance with Article II (3) of the New York Convention and under the conditions prescribed therein.