1. Has your national competition authority published guidelines on competition compliance programmes (“CCPs”)? If so, what are the key components of an effective CCP?
  2. Are there any recent cases in your jurisdiction where the NCA/competent courts have discussed the impact of CCPs?
  4. Has the role of the management and/or employees of the company been assessed with respect to preventing, participating in, detecting and reporting violations, or remediating violations? Is there a link between the role of the company's management and/or employees and an effective CCP?
  5. Has the fact that an undertaking has a CCP been helpful in reducing a fine for an infringement of competition law? What facts, arguments or commitments were used to justify the reduction and what is the maximum reduction that can be granted? If a reduction is not granted, why not?
  6. Are CCPs (their adoption or updating) used as evidence for "self-cleaning" measures when an economic operator risks being excluded from a public procurement procedure for collusive behaviour?
  7. Please indicate any additional considerations / rules, trends that are important in your country in relation to CCPs.
  8. Are there legal developments on the horizon in relation to CCPs?

jurisdiction

Serbia
Add jurisdiction

1. Has your national competition authority published guidelines on competition compliance programmes (“CCPs”)? If so, what are the key components of an effective CCP?

Yes.  In 2021, the Serbian Commission for protection of competition (the “CPC”) published specific Guidelines for Drafting Competition Compliance Programmes (“Guidelines”). Alongside these guidelines, a Template Competition Compliance Programme has been provided. Additionally, Competition Checklists have been devised to evaluate undertakings' susceptibility to competition infringements. The Guidelines offer a detailed guide on creating effective Competition Compliance Programmes (“CCP”) to ensure adherence to the Law on Protection of Competition in Serbia. The key components of the effective CCP are the following:

  1. Risk Self-Assessment: Identifying potential risks related to competition law violations based on the company's market position, industry, and business practices.
  2. Management Commitment: Clear and explicit commitment from senior management to support the implementation of competition compliance programs, including allocating sufficient resources.
  3. Organizational Structure: Creating a clear reporting structure, including appointing compliance officers responsible for monitoring and addressing competition-related issues.
  4. Internal Mechanism for Cooperation: Establishing protocols for cooperating with the CPC during investigations and ensuring the company meets its legal obligations.
  5. Training Programs: Educating staff on competition laws, prohibited behaviors, and internal procedures to identify and report potential risks.
  6. Monitoring and Evaluation: Regularly reviewing the effectiveness of the CCP, including monitoring for potential competition law infringements and taking corrective actions when needed.

2. Are there any recent cases in your jurisdiction where the NCA/competent courts have discussed the impact of CCPs?

In Serbia, the CPC does not consider whether a company has/had a CCP when calculating penalties. However, in one instance the CPC mandated the implementation of a compliance program. Namely, the CPC imposed the requirement for the company to develop and implement an internal compliance program as part of the conditions for suspending the antitrust proceeding (Decision on Conditional Suspension of the Proceeding No. 4/0-02-06/2021-9 (28.10.2021)). Additionally, the company was obligated to conduct an annual antitrust training. This case highlights the CPC's recognition of CCPs as a corrective measure, although they are not factored into the calculation of penalties during typical enforcement. This example demonstrates that while the presence of a CCP doesn't affect penalties, the CPC may mandate their implementation as part of settlement conditions or to suspend proceedings.

3. What arguments have been taken into account in relation to a CCP? Has the fact that a company has a CCP been assessed in terms of the effort made or the results achieved, i.e. the efficiency of the programme? Is the focus on future changes in CCPs or on existing programmes?

In Serbia, the CPC does not take into account whether a company has a CCP when calculating penalties. The focus of the CPC is rather on using CCPs as part of advocacy activities, rather than incorporating them as a mitigating circumstance in the penalty system.

No, the wilful or negligent actions of the management are relevant only when calculating the amount of the fine as a mitigating or aggravating factor. The responsibility of the company is always objective, meaning there is strict liability for the behaviour of employees and management as they failed to prevent the infringement.

5. Has the fact that an undertaking has a CCP been helpful in reducing a fine for an infringement of competition law? What facts, arguments or commitments were used to justify the reduction and what is the maximum reduction that can be granted? If a reduction is not granted, why not?

No. In Serbia, the CPC does not consider whether a company has a CCP when determining penalties. The focus is primarily on the nature and severity of the infringement, rather than the presence of internal compliance measures.

6. Are CCPs (their adoption or updating) used as evidence for "self-cleaning" measures when an economic operator risks being excluded from a public procurement procedure for collusive behaviour?

No.

There are no additional rules or trends in this regard. 

We do not expect any legal developments in the near future.