Serbia - Karanovic & Nikolic
Serbia - Karanovic & Nikolic Serbia - Karanovic & Nikolic
SerbiaCommission will use a wider interpretation of control than that found in the EuropeanCommission’s Notice.iii Takeovers by public tender offerRegardless of whether the turnover thresholds have been met, all transactions occurring asa result of a public tender offer have to be notified to the Competition Commission. Theonly exception is where the public tender offer would result in an internal restructuringwithin a holding.VOUTLOOK AND CONCLUSIONSThe merger control regime in Serbia functions relatively well. The CompetitionCommission has increased its capacity, and handles cases in an efficient and fairlyconsistent manner. Some of its activities have to a certain extent been motivated bypublic pressure and consumer expectations, but its standard of review is transparent andpredictable.The regime is for the most part aligned with the EU regime and there are noimmediate areas of concern. We expect certain formal changes in the standard of reviewfollowing the announced changes in the definition of dominance, which will necessarilyreflect upon the dominance test that is used most often in substantive review.379
Appendix 1about the authorsRastko PetakovićKaranović & NikolićRastko Petaković is a partner at Karanović & Nikolić, and is the head of the regionalcompetition practice group. He focuses on competition, antitrust, trade and telecommatters, and is a highest-ranked competition lawyer by all the principal directories.With a background in economy, he focuses on the most complex antitrust, competitionlitigation and merger control matters. Mr Petaković is an editor and co-author of theonly regional annual publication on competition law (Focus on Competition) and a rangeof other publications (IFLR, Global Competition Review, Doing Business in Serbia, etc.).He teaches competition law at the Belgrade Law Faculty.505
- Page 3 and 4: The MergerControlReviewFourth Editi
- Page 5 and 6: The Real Estate Law ReviewThe Priva
- Page 7 and 8: acknowledgementsThe publisher ackno
- Page 9 and 10: contentsEditor’s Preface.........
- Page 12 and 13: ContentsChapter 34 SERBIA .........
- Page 14 and 15: Editor’s PrefacePre-merger compet
- Page 16: Editor’s Prefaceauthority has wor
- Page 21 and 22: SerbiaCommission initiated proceedi
- Page 23 and 24: SerbiaThe Competition Law also appl
- Page 25 and 26: SerbiaHowever, in the recent Stampa
- Page 27: ivSubstantive assessmentSerbiaWhen
<strong>Serbia</strong>Commission will use a wider interpretation of control than that found in the EuropeanCommission’s Notice.iii Takeovers by public tender offerRegardless of whether the turnover thresholds have been met, all transactions occurring asa result of a public tender offer have to be notified to the Competition Commission. Theonly exception is where the public tender offer would result in an internal restructuringwithin a holding.VOUTLOOK AND CONCLUSIONSThe merger control regime in <strong>Serbia</strong> functions relatively well. The CompetitionCommission has increased its capacity, and handles cases in an efficient and fairlyconsistent manner. Some of its activities have to a certain extent been motivated bypublic pressure and consumer expectations, but its standard of review is transparent andpredictable.The regime is for the most part aligned with the EU regime and there are noimmediate areas of concern. We expect certain formal changes in the standard of reviewfollowing the announced changes in the definition of dominance, which will necessarilyreflect upon the dominance test that is used most often in substantive review.379
Change language