This section looks at the regulatory and non-regulatory measures and steps required for a comprehensive and systemic resolution of the non-performing receivables problem. Apart from solutions that should make it easier to assign these receivables, the recommendations also include measures that ought to eliminate their causes, together with steps for mitigating the adverse impact of existing non-performing receivables.
The measures are grouped by areas in which non-performing receivables are regulated and by how these steps can be taken. Apart from the proposed regulatory interventions, awareness-raising and educational campaigns must also be delivered to familiarise MSMEs with the importance and impact of non-performing loans in their operations.
STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK OF REGULATORY AND MARKET-BASED MEASURES TO RESOLVE MSMES’ NON-PERFORMING RECEIVABLES
Develop and enact a National Programme and Action Plan for Resolution of Non-Performing Receivables held by Serbian MSMEs
An approach similar to that taken in policies addressing non-performing loans (NPLs) should ideally be taken to resolve MSMEs’ non-performing receivables. As the MSME sector is the most severely affected by this issue, it is the sector that these policies should target the most closely. As such, policy instruments such as a National Programme and Action Plan to resolve Serbian MSMEs’ non-performing receivables would provide an overall framework of measures and options for monitoring their implementation. Given the extent of the measures proposed, their success depends on significant political will and readiness on the part of public authorities. The strategic documents could result in a systematic and planned approach to addressing non-performing receivables in Serbia.
This activity would entail two steps:
– Creation of a Working Party to develop the National Programme and Action Plan that would comprise representatives of the Government of Serbia, Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Telecommunications, Ministry of Finance, Tax Administration, Serbian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, National Bank of Serbia, and other relevant institutions; and
– Development and enactment of the National Programme and Action Plan.
IMPROVEMENT OF THE LATE PAYMENT LAW
Establish an effective mechanism to enforce the Late Payment Law
Currently, the Tax Administration is responsible for enforcing the Late Payment Law, even though this is not a core activity of this entity, and the limited resources it has at its disposal for this purpose (such as the number of inspectors, all of which also have other duties) directly affects the quality of its enforcement operations. The Tax Administration is pursuing a re-engineering of its business processes and a consolidation exercise. Its strategic transformation documents have identified a set of activities that are not related to taxation and as such are not part of its core business, and this includes enforcing prompt payment in commercial transactions. This current power could be transferred to the Competition Commission, but that body’s current statutory powers and capacity constraints should also be taken into account. Any transfer of powers would have to be preceded by a functional assessment to determine the required human and infrastructural resources for effective enforcement of the law.
This activity would entail the following steps:
– Functional assessment of the resources needed to effectively enforce the Late Payment Law to inform the potential transfer of these powers to a different government authority.
– Development and enactment of amendments to the Late Payment Law with regard to enforcement powers (Article 9);
– Transfer of enforcement powers to another government authority, potentially the Competition Commission.
Mandate reporting on payment practices by statute
A reporting requirement is a precondition for amending the current enforcement arrangements for the Late Payment Law, as reporting data would reveal sectors where late payments were the most pressing issue and could inform decisions on allocating resources to such enforcement. Additionally, a reporting requirement, coupled with the change in the enforcement authority, would permit the Competition Commission to act automatically in the event of ‘excessive’ payment delays. Power asymmetry between parties to commercial transactions has a bearing on long payment periods. Since the law cannot alter the bargaining power of individual companies and given the importance of debtors for some suppliers (MSMEs), creditor safeguards could be ensured by mandating reporting of payment practices that would permit these firms to be aware in advance of what they could expect and could contribute to expedited payment.[1]
Reporting frequency could be set so as to take into account the costs of such reporting for businesses (IT infrastructure, data collection costs, etc.), as well as the correlation between reporting and informed decision-making. On the one hand, since this requirement would primarily apply to large companies, annual reports could be mandated that would be submitted together with annual operating reports. That being said, an annual frequency could defeat the purpose of the reporting requirement as the data could become outdated over such a long period of time. Quarterly reporting would ensure the reports were relevant for decision-making in terms of both entering into contracts and what terms to agree to.
This activity would entail the following steps:
– Development and enactment of amendments to the Late Payment Law to introduce new reporting requirements for businesses that could be grouped according to: 1) subject matter (payment periods in non-financial contracts); 2) extent, to include (a) information on payment terms such as periods, any changes to these, and dispute resolution; and (b) information on average payment periods, to include statistics for timely and late payments); and 3) addressees (medium-sized and large companies, or medium-sized and large companies in the trade sector.
Introduce a legal standard for ‘grossly unfair’ contractual terms
The Late Payment Law does not define ’grossly unfair’ contractual terms. According to Directive 2011/7/EU, such a definition could extend to situations where a payment period is deemed to be grossly unfair for the creditor. Recital 12 of the Directive, for instance, sets out terms that should be presumed to be grossly unfair to the creditor: 1) exclusion of the right to charge interest, which should always be considered to be a grossly unfair contractual term or practice, and 2) exclusion of the right to compensation for recovery costs.
This activity would entail the following steps:
– Development and enactment of amendments to the Late Payment Law to introduce exceptions from statutory payment periods (Articles 3 and 4) modelled after Directive 2011/7/EU, which permits contracting parties to explicitly stipulate longer payment periods provided that such terms are not grossly unfair to the creditor. Here, using the Directive as a model, the definition could include situations where a particular period is deemed to be grossly unfair to the creditor; and
– Preparation of guidelines for application of the legal standards for ‘grossly unfair’ contractual terms to be used by courts, supervisory authorities, and businesses. These guidelines could specifically include examples of contractual terms grossly unfair to creditors.
Define the term ‘non-performing account receivable’
A new definition of non-performing receivables must be introduced. This definition should be broad in its scope: apart from delinquent receivables, it ought to include other accounts receivable where the specific circumstances suggest that the receivable has become or could become non-performing. The definition could take into account aspects such as the debtor’s account being frozen by creditors, enforced collection by other creditors, and similar circumstances that seriously threaten the debtor’s liquidity and ability to repay the debt in full and on maturity. The rationale is that a receivable could become non-performing even before it becomes due, which is why clear criteria must be introduced to determine which receivables could be categorised as non-performing.
This activity would entail the following steps:
– Develop and enact amendments to the Late Payment Law to introduce a new definition of non-performing receivables (Article 2).
Mandate shorter payment periods in some cases, especially for perishable goods
In 2019, the EU enacted Directive 2019/633 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain,[2] which envisages specific rules for delinquent payments in this sector relative to Directive 2011/7/EU. Here, payment made later than 30 days after the delivery date or due date; and 2) cancellation of an order of perishable products at such short notice that the supplier cannot reasonably be expected to find an alternative means of commercialising or using those product (30 days prior to envisaged delivery) are deemed to be unfair trading practices. Amendments to Serbian law could be modelled after Directive 2019/633, to remove the current restrictive maximum payment period, which applies regardless of the type of commercial transaction and envisages exceptions, and replace it with definitions of circumstances that require shorter payment periods. As such, the restrictive provision (the maximum payment term of 60 days, under the current rules) would be replaced by shorter terms for sectors where late payments pose more of a pressing problem (e.g. 30 days for perishable goods and food).
This activity would entail the following steps:
– Development and enactment of amendments to the Late Payment Law and the Trade Law to introduce shorter payment periods for perishable goods;
– Alignment of the statutory framework and definition of perishable goods, such as food and agricultural produce, after the pattern of Directive (EU) 2019/633 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain.
Introduce collective redress mechanisms for creditors with monetary claims
The legal regulation of ‘grossly unfair’ contractual terms is a precondition for collective redress for creditors with monetary claims. The collective mechanisms envisaged in Directive 2011/7/EU entail collective representation of creditors to address grossly unfair contractual provisions/terms.[3] Collective redress has failed to gain wide acceptance. Factors that affect options for collective redress include organisational resources and capacity, restrictions imposed by articles of association (where these instruments prevent organisations from pleading cases for their members in court), and potential conflicts of interest where contested provisions are found in contracts with members of the entity bringing the collective action.[4]
This activity would entail the following steps:
– Development and enactment of amendments to the Late Payment Law to introduce collective redress for creditors after the model of Directive 2011/7/EU by allowing complaints intended to address grossly unfair contractual provisions/terms.
FOSTERING A CULTURE OF PROMPT PAYMENT IN COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS
Introduce sectoral initiatives to foster good business practices in payment of receivables
Experience from EU Member States shows that good business practices can be successfully fostered through initiatives aimed at addressing late payments in individual sectors.
Sectoral codes permit comprehensive regulation of commercial relationships between creditors and debtors tailored to issues characteristic for each sector.[5] This initiative is valuable in that sectoral codes may target the causes of delinquent payment, and rules can be tailored to particular sectors. In time, sectoral initiatives can grow into regulatory measures.[6]
This activity would entail the following steps:
– Develop guidelines for particular sectors of the economy to foster a culture of prompt payment, adherence to contractual terms, contracting of fair commercial payment terms, etc.
Introduce a Prompt Payment Code
Apart from codes that focus on late payments in particular sectors, Prompt Payment Codes may regulate payment terms in asymmetrical transactions and focus on particular types of debtors.[7] Companies acceding to Prompt Payment Codes undertake to adhere to payment terms and to abide by good business practices established by these codes. This Code could be developed and introduced in co-operation with the SCC and other business associations and companies.[8] The Code ought to be accompanied by outreach to familiarise businesses with its content and significance. In a long-term perspective, businesses should incorporate provisions of the code in their day-to-day operations.
This activity would entail the following steps:
– Development and adoption of the Prompt Payment Code, in co-operation with the Serbian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, relevant business associations (especially those that represent the interests of MSMEs) and large companies, requiring the signatories to pay promptly, especially to MSMEs that are the worst affected by late payments; and
– Action to familiarise businesses with the content and benefits of the Code.
Introduce an MSME Commissioner
A regulatory framework for an MSME Commissioner would allow direct institutional support to MSME creditors facing difficulties in collecting receivables. As an independent watchdog, the Commissioner would be able to address issues faced by MSMEs in dealing with their debtors, especially large businesses. Other jurisdictions have already introduced similar arrangements.[9] Apart from making recommendations to address grievances, the Commissioner would advise MSMEs as to how to work with clients and handle payment-related disputes, and would inform these businesses about alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
This activity would entail the following steps:
– Development and enactment of a regulatory framework instituting the Commissioner and regulating complaints and resolution of outstanding issues between parties to contracts.
Ensure greater use of alternative dispute resolution through mediation
Alternative approaches to providing relief to creditors aim at reducing legal costs, ensuring more efficient collection, and incentivising creditors to access their rights whilst maintaining working relationships with their debtors. Mediation is a mechanism best suited to commercial disputes, given their nature and the needs of the parties. The requirement for mediators to ensure equality of both parties is particularly significant for asymmetrical transactions. In addition, confidentiality in mediation safeguards the reputation of businesses, which provides an incentive for debtors to take part in these proceedings.[10]
Development of a specialised mediator training programme is the key step in the creation of an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in commercial B2B transactions. An alternative dispute resolution mechanism can be developed within the current legal framework established by the Law on Mediation in Dispute Resolution (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 55/2014)[11] and the Law on Chambers of Commerce (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 112/2015),[12] which authorises the Serbian Chamber of Commerce to mediate in commercial disputes. At the time of writing, four organisations held licenses to offer specialised training for mediation in commercial disputes in Serbia.[13]
Inform and educate MSMEs
Research has shown that businesses have little awareness of the Late Payment Law. An outreach campaign conducted after the law was enacted aimed at familiarising stakeholders with the rights and obligations envisaged by this piece of legislation, but met with limited success.
Lack of understanding of the receivables market is a major constraint preventing businesses from selling their accounts receivable. According to semi-structured interviews, companies expect to be able to sell unsecured debt at between 50 and 70 percent of its face value, whilst the actual market value is between 1 and 3 percent. Creditors are not aware of how they can protect themselves, and as such their receivables are not appropriately secured by collateral. With regard to discount rates for unsecured receivables owed by delinquent debtors, MSMEs generally do not expect to be able to sell them. By contrast, MSMEs that do have experience with selling receivables have a more realistic opinion of their value. This is why some stakeholders in the receivables market ought to receive education in both financial and technical aspects.
Chief financial officers (CFOs), chief executive officers (CEOs), and company owners ought to be involved in awareness raising about the importance of appropriately managing corporate finances. This activity requires the creation of an educational platform to present options for addressing non-performing receivables and effective receivables management as the first step in raising awareness and disseminating effective receivables management practices amongst MSMEs. Doing so may address one of the key issues with selling non-performing receivables, namely their poor quality. Creditors thus need to be educated as to how to protect themselves and ensure collection, the actions that can be taken in this regard, and how a receivable can be assessed for performance.
Outreach can take several forms, as it can be designed to both prevent issues and educate. In addition to providing information about companies’ rights and obligations in the event of payment delinquency, the campaign could focus on receivables management and the options that creditors have at their disposal to reduce the cost of collection or raise finance for operations, as well as reduce the risk attributable to non-performing receivables. This measure is particularly significant for MSMEs, since they could receive training on how to assign individual receivables and which businesses purchase debt.
These activities would parallel awareness-raising for businesses focusing on their rights and obligations in the event of delinquency that would acquaint them with the steps they ought to take to avoid the consequences of late payment. The outreach ought to be aimed at sectors most affected by issues with collection.
Since this measure is indirectly aimed at improving business practices, its effects should be assessed from the perspective of creditors. The results would here depend on appropriately targeting stakeholders, relevance of the issues under consideration, and costs of participating in training events. This type of initiative could be offered periodically by the Chamber of Commerce, which is responsible for delivering formal and informal training for businesses, as well as by other relevant organisations.[14]
IMPROVING THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR SALE OF NON-PERFORMING RECEIVABLES
Reduce administrative costs of enforcement
Administrative costs of enforcement could be reduced by amending the Enforcement Officer Tariff of Fees. According to Item 2[8] of the Tariff of Fees, a procedural decision allowing a creditor to intervene in a case attracts a fee equal to 20 percent of the fee for preparing, managing, and archiving an enforcement case. Any amendments to the Tariff must be preceded by an impact assessment to ascertain the potential effects of any reduction in enforcement officer revenues vs the likely savings in transaction costs when receivables are sold. If the savings turned out to be proportionately more significant than the income lost by enforcement officers, this measure would be desirable and cost-effective.
This activity would entail the following steps:
– Conduct a feasibility assessment of reducing the procedural costs of enforcement imposed by the Enforcement Officer Tariff of Fees; and
– Develop and adopt amendments to the Enforcement Officer Tariff of Fees (Item 2[8]) to remove the fee equal to 20 percent of the fee for preparing, managing, and archiving cases currently applicable to enforcement officers’ procedural decisions permitting change of creditor following assignment.
Reduce transactional costs involved in selling receivables
Transaction costs can be reduced by amending provisions of the LES and BL that require assignment contracts to be notarised before creditors can intervene in enforcement or bankruptcy proceedings. In addition to addressing the notarisation issue, these amendments could also permit new creditors to intervene with the consent of the (former) enforcement or bankruptcy creditor. Notarisation is required by Article 48[2] of the ESL where receivables are assigned in the course of an enforcement proceeding, and by Article 117a of the BL for admitted and contested claims in bankruptcy. This requirement also entails having to submit notarised copies of contracts proving assignment in enforcement or bankruptcy proceedings. Amending these procedural laws would alter conditions for intervening in an ongoing proceeding, so any changes would have to be preceded by an assessment of their impact on legal certainty and their systemic alignment with other current legislation. This assessment would have to ascertain whether new options for intervening would jeopardise the legal certainty of selling receivables or create room for abuse such as multiple sales of one and the same receivable.
This activity would entail the following steps:
– Conducting an assessment to ascertain impact on legal predictability and alignment with other legal provisions; and
– Development and adoption of amendments to Article 48[2] of the Law on Enforcement and Security and Article 117 of the Bankruptcy Law to replace notarisation as the precondition for intervening by consent from the assignor.
Permit registration of assigned receivables with the Pledge Register maintained by the SBRA
Greater legal certainty in selling receivables can be achieved by allowing assigned receivables to be registered with the Pledge Register maintained by the SBRA. This option is already available for pledging receivables, an arrangement quite similar to assignment. As registration involves paying a fee to the SBRA, an impact assessment of this measure ought to be undertaken to ascertain what its potential impact may be on transactional costs as opposed to any increase in legal certainty in selling receivables. This activity would entail the following steps:
– Conducting an assessment to ascertain impact on transactional costs as opposed to greater legal certainty; and
– Development and adoption of amendments to the Law on Registered Charges on Moveable Assets and Rights.
Provide a more detailed definition of factoring
According to the current definition from Article 2[1] of the Factoring Law, factoring is a financial service consisting of the sale and purchase of an existing non-matured or future short-term monetary account receivable arising from a goods or services supply contract in Serbia or abroad. Article 5[2] of the FL stipulates that a factoring company may only engage in factoring activities and activities related to or connected with factoring. Non-compliance with this rule is a misdemeanour punishable by a fine ranging from RSD 100,000 to 2 million for the factoring company and from RSD 5,000 to 150,000 for the responsible officer of that company. For this reason, Article 5 must be clarified to unambiguously permit factoring companies to perform activities other than factoring that are not permitted by other regulations and so remove this source of uncertainty as to what a company may do without exposing itself to the fines envisaged by the FL.
This activity would entail the following steps:
– Development and adoption of amendments to the Factoring Law to provide a more detailed definition of factoring and explicitly stipulate that factoring companies can purchase non-factoring receivables (Article 5).
IMPROVING THE TAX TREATMENT OF RECEIVABLES
Permit settlement and mediation to qualify a creditor for writing off a receivable for tax purposes
Article 16 of the CIT Law must be amended to permit recognition of impairment and write-off loss in the event of settlement and mediation. Currently, for a taxpayer to be able to write off a receivable and claim it as an expenditure for tax purposes, the taxpayer must meet the requirements of Article 16[1] CIT Law:
1. there must be unambiguous evidence that the receivables were previously included in the taxpayer’s income;
2. the receivables must have been written off as uncollectable in the taxpayer’s books of account; and
3. the taxpayer must provide evidence of having sought to collect the receivable in court, meaning that enforcement proceedings were initiated to collect the receivables or that the receivables have been filed as claims in a liquidation or bankruptcy proceeding against the debtor.
With regard to Item 3 above, settlement and mediation must be included in the list of legal actions that qualify a receivable for being written off for tax purposes, as is the case in Croatia. This measure would motivate creditors to seek avenues for collection other than bringing court cases or other proceedings against their debtors.
This activity would entail the following steps:
– Conducting a fiscal impact assessment for this measure.
– Development and adoption of amendments to the Corporate Income Tax Law to permit recognition of impaired and written-off receivables as expenses in the event of settlement or mediation (Article 16).
Introduce additional grounds for claiming VAT relief for uncollected receivables
Article 21[5] of the VAT Law allows VAT payers to claim relief for bad debt on the basis of 1) a final court ruling closing a bankruptcy proceeding, or 2) a certified transcript of the court settlement order. In all other cases, where the consideration for a transaction involving goods or services could not be collected in whole or in part for other reasons (lapsing of the receivable due to statute of limitations, suspension of enforced collection proceeding, and the like), the VAT payer may not claim VAT relief for the amount not collected. It would be desirable to envisage other cases in which accounts receivable remain outstanding, on the EU pattern, where less restrictive grounds for VAT relief would be available. The experiences of other jurisdictions suggest that several criteria could be key for permitting such more flexible VAT relief options:
– a set period must have elapsed since the VAT liability was incurred;
– the claimant must have recorded the receivable as uncollectable;
– the claimant must be a VAT payer;
– the VAT taxable base must not exceed a particular amount; and
– the claimant must have taken some legal action to collect the receivable.
Inform and educate MSMEs of the beneficial tax treatment available through sale of receivables
MSMEs must be educated as to how non-performing receivables affect their tax liability, assess their costs in this regard, and understand the tax rules that apply to the recognition of non-performing receivables for the purpose of assessing the tax base at the end of each tax period.
This activity would entail the following steps:
– Offering workshops for MSMEs to showcase potential tax savings they could achieve by selling receivables as opposed to writing them off; and
– Preparing educational materials for MSMEs.
INTRODUCE POTENTIAL MARKET-BASED SOLUTIONS FOR MSME RECEIVABLES FINANCING
Regulatory review of the treatment of fintech platforms and feasibility assessment of a new MSME receivables market
Since invoice trading platforms are not specifically regulated, there is some degree of legal uncertainty as to how they could operate in Serbia. This is one of the principal barriers to the entry of these platforms into the Serbian market.
A detailed regulatory review of the Serbian legal landscape ought to be conducted from the points of view of all relevant areas of regulation, such as the provision of financial services, application of AML/CFT rules, personal data protection, foreign exchange operations, lending, capital market operation, and other areas.
This analysis should identify Serbian regulations that should appropriately govern the rights and obligations of invoice trading platforms. It could also determine whether specific rules were needed to regulate alternative finance for MSMEs. Apart from changes to the regulatory environment, the review would also have to identify government bodies and authorities responsible for regulating and overseeing fintech platforms.
A feasibility study is also necessary to look into options for introducing an MSME receivables financing model and creating a new MSME receivables market. These documents would serve as strategic guidance for Serbian authorities called upon to regulate and oversee invoice trading platforms and other innovative options for alternative MSME finance.
This feasibility study could specifically assess whether this new market segment could be created using existing infrastructure and capacities of the Serbian capital market. Here, it ought to be assessed whether the current stock market infrastructure and existing transaction settlement system could be applied to transactions involving accounts receivable. If the present capacity could indeed support making receivables a new type of financial instruments, regulatory authorities could potentially be more efficient in implementation. It the NBS and the Securities Commission would be expected to be recognised as regulators that would govern and scrutinise this new segment of the capital market. Lastly, if receivables were included as a new financial instrument into an already regulated market (such as the capital market, which is regulated by the CML), regulatory authorities would also be expected to recognise this new market segment and have the requisite capacity to efficiently regulate it.
[1] Impact Assessment, Requirement for large companies and listed companies to report on their payment practices and policies. Available at assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/380210/bis-14-1203-annex-e-duty-to-report-on-payment-practices-impact-assessment.pdf.
[2] OJ L 111, 25/4/2019.
[3] According to the European Commission’s Recommendation on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union law, which adopts a horizontal approach (in that it applies to all areas where collective redress is offered for violations of rights granted under Union law), a minimum set of criteria must be met for an entity to be recognised as having legal standing to bring representative action. These are the non-profit character of the entity, a direct relation between its objectives and the violated rights and a sufficient capacity (funding, human resources, and expertise) to represent multiple claimants acting in their best interest.
[4] European Commission. 2018. Business-to-business transactions: a comparative analysis of legal measures vs. soft-law instruments for improving payment behaviour, 47. Available at publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c8b7391b-9b80-11e8-a408-01aa75ed71a1.0001.01/DOC_1.
[5] For instance, in 2009 the UK adopted the Groceries Supply Code of Practice, which introduced the principle of fair dealing. This requires retailers to make no distinction between formal and informal arrangements and recognise suppliers’ needs for certainty in relation to payment issues.
[6] As was the case with the Groceries Supply Code of Practice after the Groceries Code Adjudicator Act was adopted in 2013. The Adjudicator (‘Supermarket ombudsman’) is responsible for investigations if some retailers are suspected of having breached the Code, as well as mediating in disputes between retailers and suppliers. For a detailed discussion, see Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. Guidance Groceries Supply Code of Practice. 2009, available at gov.uk/government/publications/groceries-supply-code-of-practice/groceries-supply-code-of-practice. See also Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. 2020. Groceries Code Adjudicator: statutory review, 2016 to 2019, available at gov.uk/government/organisations/groceries-code-adjudicator.
[7] In EU Member States, initiatives for companies to sign up to these codes are launched by chambers of commerce, business associations, bodies specialised in addressing late payment issues, and line ministries. See European Commission. 2018. Business-to-business transactions: a comparative analysis of legal measures vs. soft-law instruments for improving payment behaviour, 41. Available at publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c8b7391b-9b80-11e8-a408-01aa75ed71a1.0001.01/DOC_1.
[8] A similar initiative focused on MSMEs has been endorsed by the SCC as part of a broader international project and envisages the issuance of ‘Excellent SME’ certificates to businesses meeting the conditions of 1) turnover in excess of 4 million dinars annually and 2) good credit standing. The certificates are valid for one year and may be revoked if the company no longer meets the requirements.
[9] For instance, in the UK, the Enterprise Act 2016 established the Small Business Commissioner, a body whose responsibilities include reviewing complaints made by small businesses in connection with payment from large firms and making recommendations for dealing with uncollected debt.
[10] There are two types of mediation, one involving a body specialised for alternative dispute resolution in commercial transactions, and another where the mediator is a business association or chamber of commerce. The rules of mediation are set out in the Law on Mediation in Dispute Resolution (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 55/2014), Articles 9 to 16.
[11] Law on Mediation in Dispute Resolution (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 55/2014).
[12] Law on Chambers of Commerce (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 112/2015), Article 12[1]16).
[13] Serbian Ministry of Justice, Register of government bodies, organisations, and businesses licensed to deliver mediator training, available at mpravde.gov.rs/registar/9572/drzavni-organi-organizacije-i-pravna-lica-koje-sprovode-obuke-za-posrednike.php.
[14] Article 12 of the Law on Chambers of Commerce.