Interim measures in Serbia

1.1.1 The provisions of the Enforcement and Security Code (ESC) relating to security measures, which include interim measures, represent a general set of rules supplemented by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The general rule is that the CPC applies unless provided otherwise by the ESC or other law.

1.1.2 New amendments to the ESC came into force on January 1, 2020, replacing the previous Enforcement and Security Code. The most significant amendments in the security proceedings (dealing, inter alia, with interim measures) concern the competencies for the enforcement of interim measures, as well as the prohibition of ordering an interim measure that would prohibit the enforcement. With the goal not to secure the claim of the applicant, but rather to thwart the legal course of the enforcement proceedings, such "interim measures" are unfortunately becoming more common in practice. Their ultimate effect is the postponement of enforcement, and as the possibility of post-ponement of enforcement is already legally regulated, such temporary measures are deemed inadmissible and unnecessary. In general, however, interim measures remain regulated by the ESC in primarily the same manner as before.

1.1.3 In international cases, when a Serbian court has jurisdiction, the ESC is applied irrespective of the law governing the substantive matter (as the ESC is a set of procedural rules).

1.1.4 In addition to the types of measures envisaged by the ESC, additional interim measures are prescribed in special laws. This depends upon the particular subject matter, for example:

• for protective measures during bankruptcy or reorganization proceedings, the Bankruptcy Act applies;
• the Companies Act regulates protective measures relating to the status of a company;
• measures sought in order to protect a mortgaged property are contained in the Mortgage Act; 
• certain rules on interim measures regarding intellectual property are found in the Copyright and Similar Rights Act, Patents Act, Trademarks Act; and
• the Non-litigious Proceedings Act regulates interim measures in probate proceedings.

2.1.1 Before the substantive claim is launched, the applicant may file an interim measure request with the court that would have jurisdiction over the substantive case. Once the main proceedings or the enforcement proceedings are pending, the application for an interim measure can only be filed in the same jurisdiction as the main proceedings, or in the court at the place of enforcement. 1 ESC, art 448.

2.1.2 In the case of arbitral proceedings, a request for an interim measure can be filed with the court that would have jurisdiction for enforcement proceedings, irrespective of whether such proceedings are pending or not. 

2.1.3 If an interim measure request is filed during the enforcement proceedings, the court that issued the decision on the enforcement proceedings decides on it, irrespective of whether such proceedings are conducted by the court or public enforcement officers. 2 ESC, art 448 (3).

2.2.1 The general rule is that the court which has jurisdiction to hear the substantive case has also jurisdiction to decide on the interim measure. On that basis, a clause providing for jurisdiction for the substantive case is also effective regarding the interim measure. 

2.3.1 Once the international jurisdiction has been established, the subject-matter and functional jurisdiction must be determined. 

2.3.2 According to the Courts Organisation Act, the main differentiation is between courts of general jurisdiction and commercial courts. Depending upon the nature of a dispute and whether it is a commercial one (i.e. between companies) the jurisdiction of the relevant court is the same for the interim measure.

2.3.3 А single judge or the president of the court panel deals with an application for an interim measure, irrespective of the composition of the court which will deal with the substantive case. It is important to note that once the interim measure is awarded by the court it can be enforced either by the court itself or by a public enforcement officer. 

2.4.1 It is possible to elect the venue for certain types of claims under the CPC, e.g., if there are substantive provisions that supplement the provisions of the ESC allowing so. A notable example is non-contractual damages claims in cases where the applicant can opt between general jurisdiction (the place of residence of the respondent) and special jurisdiction (the place where the damage was caused). Given that Serbian procedural rules are unique in this regard (and all courts operate under the same set of rules), one of the main factors when choosing the venue is to avoid the respondent’s local court and the possible bias of such court towards the respondent. 

3.1.1 Interim measures envisaged by the ESC are divided into two categories: (i) interim measures for securing monetary claims and (ii) interim measures for securing non-monetary claims. 

3.1.2 In addition to interim measures, there is another means of security very similar to interim measures, known as ‘preliminary measures’. However, for preliminary measures to be applicable, certain preconditions must be met. It is therefore not a very common means of security in practice. 

Available interim measures

3.2.1 Although the ESC provides a list of interim measures which could be ordered by the court to secure monetary claims, the list is non-exhaustive and given only exempli causa. This means that the ESC stipulates that the competent court may order any measure to achieve the purpose of securing the claim and, therefore, the courts are not limited by this list of interim measures, but are free to order the interim measure which secures the claim in the safest manner. In practice, however, the courts will rarely order interim measures which differ from those listed in the ESC.

3.2.2 The list of possible interim measures for securing monetary claims is as follows: 3 ESC, art 459.

• prohibiting the respondent from disposing of movable assets, as well as the seizure of those assets and entrusting them to the applicant or a third party for safekeeping, or depositing for safekeeping with the court;
• prohibiting the respondent from disposing of or encumbering its real estate property, or real rights in real estate property registered in the public register. This prohibition is registered with the public register;
• prohibiting the respondent's debtors from paying the debt or from handing over assets to the respondent, and prohibiting the respondent from receiving the assets or collecting a debt and disposing of what is collected;
• ordering a bank or other financial organisation to transfer the funds in the amount of the secured claim to the deposit of the public enforcement officer;
• ordering the Central Registry of Securities to register the prohibition of the respondent (i) on disposing of or encumbering shares, and/or (ii) on using or disposing of its right to vote arising out of shares; and
• seizing cash or securities from the respondent and depositing them with the court or the public enforcement officer for safekeeping.

Criteria for ordering interim measures for securing monetary claims 

3.2.3 Interim measures for securing monetary claims may be ordered by a competent court if the applicant is able to prove:

1. that there is a probable claim, and 
2. that there exists a danger that, without the interim measure, the respondent shall (by alienation, concealment or disposal of its property in any other way) prevent or make the enforcement of such a claim considerably more difficult.

3.2.4 In relation to (ii), the ESC also provides that the applicant does not have to prove the danger of preventing or obstructing the collection of the claim if it can show that the respondent could suffer only minor damage if the proposed interim measure is ordered or if the claim is to be enforced abroad. 4 ESC, art 449 (4).

3.2.5 The decision on the existence of the danger is at the court’s discretion; however, the legislator has pointed out a couple of examples in which it is, by operation of law, considered that the danger exists. These are:

• if the claim is to be executed abroad even when the domestic court is competent to enforce it;
• if the enforcement procedure for due subsistence instalments has already been conducted;
• if the legal obligations or the obligations established by a final decision of the court or other authority exceed the regular income of the respondent; or
• if enforcement has been sought against the respondent because it refused to provide the data on the whereabouts of its property.

3.2.6 It is also worth noting that the court does usually not establish a lien when ordering an interim measure. However, the court is provided with the authority to establish a lien, particularly if one of the risks listed above exists.

Available interim measures

3.3.1 As with interim measures securing monetary claims, when regulating interim measures for non-monetary claims, the court is authorised to order any kind of measure which achieves the purpose of securing the non-monetary claim. In that regard, the ESC provides a general non-exhaustive list of possible measures that could be ordered by the court. However, this list does not set limitations on the court’s authority to order the measure most convenient to secure the claim. The list includes: 5 ESC, art 460.

• banning the disposal or encumbrance of the movable assets to which the claim relates, and seizing such assets and entrusting their safekeeping to the applicant or a third party or ordering that they are deposited with the court;
• banning the disposal or encumbrance of real estate property, with the registration of such a ban with the public register;
• banning the respondent from taking actions that could cause damage to the applicant and banning the alteration of the assets that are the subject of the claim;
• banning the respondent’s debtors from handing over any of the assets that are the subject of the claim to the respondent;
• ordering the Central Registry of Securities to register the prohibition of the respondent (i) on disposing of or encumbering shares, and/or (ii) on using or disposing of its right to vote arising out of shares;
• ordering the respondent to take actions necessary to preserve the movable assets or real estate property and to prevent their physical change, damage or destruction; or
• ordering temporary regulation of a disputed relationship in order to prevent violence or infliction of irreparable damage. 

Criteria for ordering interim measures for non-monetary claims

3.3.2 Interim measures for securing non-monetary claims may be ordered by the court under the conditions that mostly align with the conditions for interim measures for monetary claims. Accordingly, in addition to the probability of the existence of the claim, the applicant must make it probable that without an interim measure the enforcement of its claim would be prevented or made considerably more difficult or that force would be used or irreparable damage would occur. 6 ESC, art 449 (3). However, as noted above, the applicant does not have to establish the existence of danger if it is probable that the respondent could only suffer minor damage if the interim measure is ordered or if the claim is to be enforced abroad. 7 ESC, art 449 (4).

3.3.3 As mentioned above in paragraph 1.1.2, novelty is the provision stipulating that the court may not order an interim measure which would prohibit the implementation of enforcement. In practice, unfortunately, upon the request of a third party or the respondent, court have issued measures which prohibit the public enforcement officer from carrying out enforcement.

3.4.1 Besides interim measures, the ESC envisages other measures as a means of security which are very similar to interim measures. These are called preliminary measures. 

3.4.2 The necessary preconditions for ordering a preliminary measure are the following.

• The preliminary measure secures a monetary claim
• The preliminary measure may be ordered on the basis of (i) a domestic decision that is not final, or (ii) a domestic judicial or administrative settlement or a notarial record of settlement for which the claim is not due or (iii) on the basis of a domestic enforcement decision based on a credible document issued on the basis of a bill of exchange or check. 
• In addition, in order to determine the preliminary measure, it is necessary for the respondent to make it probable that without the preliminary measure, the settlement of his claim would be prevented or made significantly more difficult.

3.4.3 Preliminary measures are rare in practice. The parties generally request the ordering of interim measures before (or in the course of) substantive proceedings, for fear that the enforcement of their claim could otherwise be prevented or made more difficult. In most cases, the claim is already secured by interim measures when it becomes possible to request the preliminary measure. 

Form of the request

4.1.1 Interim measures are subject to the rules applicable to litigation proceedings as well as the specific rules of enforcement and security proceedings. Generally, the procedure for obtaining an interim measure is commenced by filing a request to the competent court by the interested party in the proceedings. 8 ESC Art 415 (1). The request is generally filed in writing, although it can also be submitted orally. The CPC allows electronic writs provided it is possible to obtain confirmation of receipt of the writ. Although the option of electronic writs is formally available, it is nevertheless rarely (if at all) used in practice.

Content of the request

4.1.2 The request has to include information on the claim for which the interim measure is requested, the legal grounds for the interim measure and the facts and evidence which support the request. The principle of party autonomy prevents the court from awarding more than what was requested by the party. However, following the principles of a maiore ad minus and proportionality, the court can and should order a lesser measure if the right of the applicant that is at risk can be secured by such a measure.

4.1.3 The request for interim or preliminary measure should indicate the type of interim or preliminary measure and its duration, as well as the means and the object by which it shall be executed. The applicant is obliged to appoint in the request a specifically determined and locally competent private executor who carries out the enforcement. 9 ESC, art. 416 (4).
Enclosures to the request

4.1.4 The request for an interim measure must be supported by facts and evidence which should be submitted at the same time as the request. The court will analyse and make a decision only on the basis of the facts and evidence which have been submitted. The necessity of submitting all evidence with the request is even more pronounced in cases where the court can decide on the request without waiting for the respondent to file a written answer to the request. This situation will be described in more detail below.

4.2.1 As mentioned in paragraph 4.1.1, proceedings regarding interim measures are conducted in accordance with the rules applicable to enforcement and security proceedings. These proceedings adhere to the principle of urgency. Following receipt of the request and unless an ex parte measure is sought (i.e. without notifying the respondent), the court will allow the respondent time to present its statement of defence. 10 CPC, art 5.  The statement of defence can be obtained either orally at a hearing or in writing. If the statement of defence is to be obtained in writing, the court will set the respondent a deadline by which to submit a written statement of defence. After the hearing or after the exchange of briefs of the parties, the court will decide on the request for an interim measure.

4.2.2 For ex parte measures, the court may issue an order for an interim measure without granting the respondent the right to submit a statement of defence. In those cases, the applicant has to demonstrate credibly one of the following:

• that delay may cause it to suffer irreparable damage or damage that would be difficult to compensate;
• that ex parte measures are required to prevent imminent danger of unlawful damage to property or loss of, or serious violation of rights, or to prevent violence.

4.3.1 Although it depends on the type of interim measure sought, in general all the mandatory conditions have to be fulfilled before the court will impose an interim measure. The mandatory conditions for ordering interim measures for securing monetary and non-monetary claims are described above.

Standard of proof – probability

4.3.2 The applicant does not have to fully prove the legal basis for the interim measure, but rather prove the probability of the facts on which the request for the interim measure is based. The courts have discretion to assess whether or not the standard of probability is met; it is therefore important to have a convincing request and compelling evidence.

5.1.1 If the applicant has not initiated proceedings which justify the interim measures sought, if the time period determined by the interim measure has expired, or if the circumstances in which the interim measure was ordered have changed so that the measure is no longer needed, the respondent has the right to present a motion to terminate the proceedings and discontinue any actions taken. 

5.1.2 The respondent can also present counter-arguments and evidence (either in a hearing or in a written statement of defence). However, it must present all the relevant counter-arguments and evidence when responding to the applicant’s claim, as it will not be allowed to put forward any new counter-arguments and evidence at a later stage. 

5.1.3 While the applicant has to make credible the facts of its case, it is enough for the respondent to raise substantiated allegations which can overthrow the credibility of the facts alleged by the applicant. However, since any appeal does not postpone the enforceability of the decision ordering an interim measure, it might be prudent for the applicant to make any counter-allegations as credible as possible.

5.2.1 The principle of proportionality must be applied. Interim measures will not be allowed if the security could be achieved through some other means or if a lesser measure would achieve the same level of protection for the applicant.

5.3.1 Upon the request of the respondent or the statement of the applicant, the court may order provision of security by the respondent instead of an interim measure. If security is subsequently provided by the respondent, the court will terminate the interim proceedings and discontinue any actions which have been undertaken.

5.3.2 Regardless of whether the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated the probability of the existence of its claim, the court may make the interim measure conditional upon the payment by the applicant of a security determined by the court, if the respondent so requests. The security determined by the court would serve to cover eventual damage that could be caused to the respondent. Consequently, the respondent will be required to evidence that it is likely to suffer damage as a result of the order imposing an interim measure, whilst substantiating the amount of such damage. The court has discretion as whether to order security. 

5.4.1 The respondent’s interests are also safeguarded by its right to seek compensatory damages from the applicant in cases where an ungrounded or unjustified interim measure has been imposed. 

5.4.2 A damages claim for an unjustified or ungrounded interim measure must be brought within three years of the date on which the party suffering the damage became aware of the damage and, in any event, within five years from the date of the occurrence of the damage.

6.1.1 The duration of an interim measure is determined by the court’s decision and it depends upon the circumstances of each particular case. A request for an interim measure in civil proceedings can be filed before or while the case on the substantive matter is pending, or even after the end of the civil proceedings but before the final ruling has been enforced.

6.1.2 Where an interim measure is issued before the main proceedings, the court will set a deadline by which the applicant must file the main claim. If the applicant fails to do so the interim measure will last until the expiry of the determined deadline. 11 ESC, art 457.

6.1.3 If an interim measure is issued during the main proceedings, the court will pass a decision by which its duration will be set. In practice, it will be in force until the court makes a final decision on the substantive matter.

6.1.4 In both cases, a request to extend the duration of an interim measure is possible, but only if the circumstances remain unchanged and if the period for which the interim measure has been ordered has not expired.

6.1.5 As mentioned above, if the applicant has not filed the substantive claim within the set period, or has not initiated other proceedings to justify the interim measure, or the period for which the interim measure was ordered has expired, the court shall at the request of the respondent terminate the proceedings and revoke actions already taken. The proceedings shall also be discontinued and actions already taken shall be revoked (i) at the request of the applicant; (ii) if the circumstances existing at the point when the interim measure had been ordered have changed; (iii) if the respondent submits to the court, i.e., to the public enforcement officer the secured claim, along with interest and costs of the procedure; (iv) if the respondent proves that the claim has been collected or sufficiently secured; or (v) if it is legally established that the claim has not arisen or has ceased to exist. 12 ESC, art 457.

6.2.1 As a general rule an interim measure must be urgent. 

6.2.2 The CPC provides a deadline of eight days from the day of filing the request for passing an interim measure in proceedings related to employment and to disturbance of possession. In both of these proceedings the court may pass an interim measure ex officio. In cases of disturbance of possession, the court may pass an interim measure without prior hearing of the opposing party. The appeal does not suspend the enforcement of the ordered measure. 

6.2.3 In other proceedings, the time period usually necessary for the court to decide depends on the specifics of the particular case, but the principle of urgency should always be born in mind. In general, the court and the public enforcement officer should render its decision upon a request or motion filed by the applicant or other person within 8 days, and to expedite such decision within the next 5 business days, unless a shorter or a longer period is provided for by the law. 13 ESC, art 15 (4).

7.1.1 The costs of the proceedings include court costs and party representation costs. The rule is that the party who is undertaking a legal action becomes liable to pay court costs and its own costs (including the costs for professional representation). Prior to initiating any action, an applicant should take into account the actual costs of its own representation and that fact that it might have to pay certain court costs in advance.

7.1.2 Court costs include court fees (e.g. the fees for filing the action or appeal and fees for issuing the court rulings) and, where applicable, the costs of taking evidence (e.g. costs of engaging an expert witness) or translations (e.g. if the submission needs to be forwarded abroad). Court costs are calculated based on a tariff. Different tariffs are prescribed depending on whether the dispute is being resolved before a court of general jurisdiction, a commercial court or an arbitral tribunal. For example, the cost calculation for requesting an interim measure before regular courts is prescribed by the Court Fees Act and is calculated according to a respective scale which is based on the value of the claim in question. 

7.1.3 Party representation costs include costs for professional representation (i.e. if a lawyer has been engaged) and reimbursement of necessary expenses (e.g. costs for translating documentation). Although the costs for professional representation are regulated separately by the Tariff on Attorney Fees, they are usually agreed by the party and its lawyer on a separate basis.

7.2.1 In proceedings before regular courts, the court will order the payment of an advance of the costs for each legal activity undertaken in accordance with the Court Fees Act. These legal activities are: filing the request for issuing an interim measure; the court’s decision on the requested interim measure; filing the main claim; issuing court rulings on the merits (in the first, second and possibly third instance); and filing an appeal. In proceedings before an arbitral tribunal, the tribunal may demand an advance from the applicant up to the amount of the expected tribunal costs.

7.2.2 If the applicant is a foreign citizen without residency in Serbia, the court can order the applicant to deposit a certain amount of money as a security for the respondent’s litigation costs in advance upon the request of the Serbian respondent. This is intended to cover the scenario of the respondent succeeding in the litigation. Serbia has a bilateral convention with a certain number of countries and applicants from those countries do not need to deposit any security for the legal costs of the Serbian respondent.

7.3.1 The court will issue its decision on compensation of costs within its final decision on the merits. A party seeking compensation of its costs must file and specify the claim for compensation before the end of the first instance hearings.

7.3.2 The principle of cost shifting applies for both court costs and party compensation. Accordingly, where a claimant is successful in relation to the entirety of its substantive claim, or its claim is fully accepted, the respondent must reimburse all the costs to the applicant (including the costs of any interim proceedings ordering interim measures). If the claim is partially accepted, the judge will allocate the costs accordingly. If a claim is completely rejected, the applicant must bear all the costs of the respondent. However, the judge has discretion to reject those costs which it finds unnecessary, even if the claimant is entirely successful in respect of its claims.

7.3.3 Compensation of costs for professional representation is awarded according to the Tariff on Attorney Fees. If a party was not represented by a lawyer, compensation for personal efforts is not awarded.

7.3.4 A party may be ordered, independently from the outcome of proceedings, to compensate the opposing party for any costs which were caused due to its own fault or any event which happened to it.

8.1.1 An appeal is the only legal remedy against a court’s decision ordering an interim measure in civil proceedings. An appeal may therefore always be filed, unless otherwise stipulated by law.

8.1.2 A party is allowed to submit an appeal against a court’s decision ordering an interim measure in most cases. Nevertheless, there are certain types of procedures in which the legislator has given legitimate reasons not to allow the filing of an appeal. These types of procedures include civil procedures on employment matters or procedures regarding disturbance of possession. However, in these proceedings, there will always be a possibility to contest a decision ordering an interim measure by filing an appeal against the first instance court’s decision on the merits of the dispute.

8.1.3 The time limit for filing an appeal against a decision ordering an interim measure is 8 days. 14 ESC, art 25 (1).  However, in the aforementioned procedures where a direct appeal against the decision on the interim order is not allowed, the time limit for filing an appeal against the decision ordering an interim measure and the first instance decision on the merits is 15 days from the day of the receipt of such decision (8 days in some procedures, such as those in connection to bills of exchange or cheques). On receipt of the appeal, the court shall deliver the appeal to the opposing party, which has 15 days (or 8 days as set out above) to submit its response to the appeal. After receiving the respondent’s response to the appeal, or after expiry of the time given for the submission of the response, the court shall deliver the case files to the court of the higher instance to decide on the appeal.

8.1.4 In the course of deciding on the appeal, the second instance court may:

• reject the appeal as untimely, incomplete or disallowed;
• reject the appeal as ungrounded and confirm the decision of the first instance court; or
• revise or reverse the first instance decision and, if required, send the case back to the first instance court.

9.1.1 A separate enforcement procedure does not exist for interim measures the decision on interim measures has the same legal effect as the decision on enforcement. The enforcement of interim measures can be conducted by a public enforcement officer (which is the rule) or by the court (the exception). Preliminary and interim measures are enforced by the public enforcement officer, except for the cases where the court has exclusive jurisdiction therein (i.e. for the enforcement of performance, non-performance or sufferance that could only be undertaken by the respondent, reinstatement of an employee, and enforcement of enforceable documents related to family relationships, except for collection of statutory maintenance and other cases provided by other law). 15 ESC, art 422 (3).

9.1.2 The enforcement of interim measures may be carried out in the following ways:

• by imposing coercive measures – by taking away a movable asset, vacating real property or seizing counterfeit products. The order will be executed by the responsible local authority, usually an enforcement officer and the police;
• by ordering the performance of a third party (i.e. authorise the applicant, the bank or another institution); or
• by replacing a party’s declaration by the order of the court – where the respondent does not make a declaration (e.g. needed for the entry into a public registry), an order of the court can replace such declaration. Further, the court is able to give instructions to the registrar of public registries.

9.1.3 If the interim measure is not enforced, the court may impose administrative fines or penalties, and in addition the applicant has the right to claim compensation by way of damages.

• The court may issue a decision to impose an administrative fine on the respondent, the respondent’s debtor, bank or other natural or legal entity, as well as the authorised persons in a legal entity or state authority who have not complied with an order of the court issued in the enforcement proceedings. For natural persons and authorised persons within a legal entity, the fine can range from RSD 10,000 to RSD 200,000, while for legal entities the fine can range from RSD 100,000 to RSD 2,000,000. The court can re-impose the fine until the order is complied with. The general rule is that the re-imposed fine is higher than the initial fine. If the court fines the respondent, the money is owed to the state, not to the applicant. 
• The law also provides for an order for court penalties in cases of non-performance of non-monetary obligations by the respondent – the applicant does this by addressing the court and requesting it to issue a decision on court penalties. By issuing such a decision, the court will provide an additional time period for the respondent to subsequently fulfil its obligation; should it fail to do so, the respondent will be obliged to pay the applicant a certain amount of money for each day of delay (or some other time period).
• According to the ESC, the applicant has a right to claim compensation by way of damages from the person who was obliged to comply with the court order or prohibition but failed to do so.

9.2.1 An order for an interim measure issued by a foreign court may be recognised in line with bilateral treaties or understandings, or unilaterally following the rules of the Serbian Private International Law (SPIL) and ESC.

Enforcement under the bilateral treaties

9.2.2 An interim measure order issued in a country with which Serbia has concluded a bilateral treaty on recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions will be recognised and enforced in Serbia under the rules of that treaty. In general, enforcement is swift and takes place without any major problems. 

9.2.3 Serbia has concluded bilateral treaties regulating the procedure of recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions with various countries, including Algeria, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Greece, Hungary, Iraq, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Russia, and Slovakia.

Enforcement under the SPIL

9.2.4 The recognition and enforcement of decisions of courts from countries with which Serbia has not concluded a bilateral treaty is governed by provisions provided in the SPIL and the ESC.

9.2.5 The recognition and enforcement of a foreign interim measure order can be conducted either (i) before the Higher Court as a separate procedure prior to the enforcement procedure or (ii) before the relevant court for enforcements as a preliminary issue. 

9.2.6 In recognition and enforcement procedures the applicant needs to provide confirmation that the order is both final and enforceable.

In the following cases the interim measure order will not be recognised and enforced:

• if the party to whose disadvantage the order was issued was not allowed to participate in the proceedings due to irregularities regarding the proceedings;
• if the Serbian court or other authority has exclusive jurisdiction in the respective matter:
• if the Serbian court or other authority has already issued a final decision or if another foreign decision has been recognised and enforced regarding the respective manner:
• if it is contrary to public policy; or
• if there is no reciprocity.

10.1.1 As described in paragraph 2.1.2, in line with ESC provisions, an application for interim measures may be filed with the state court both before and after the arbitral proceedings have commenced. This provision is further elaborated in the Serbian Arbitration Act (AA) according to which the jurisdiction of state courts extends to cases where the arbitral tribunal has a seat outside of Serbia. 16 AA art. 15.

10.2.1 Provided the parties have not agreed to the contrary, the rule set up by the AA states that the arbitral tribunal has the power to impose an interim measure which it deems necessary with regard to the matter in dispute, under proposal by one of the parties. The tribunal may also decide that the opposing party lodges an appropriate security. As a general rule, the arbitral tribunal cannot enforce its orders or impose sanctions if a party does not voluntarily comply with such orders. In that case, provisions of the ESC regulating enforcement of interim measures apply and assistance of the state court can be sought. 

10.3 Interim measures by arbitral tribunal with seat abroad

10.3.1 Neither the SPIL nor the AA explicitly regulates the possibility of enforcing interim measures ordered by a foreign arbitral tribunal. However, Section IX of the AA (which regulates questions of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards) states that provisions of ESC relating to the enforcement of interim measures are not excluded by the AA and that the ESC applies. 17 AA art. 65.  This could be interpreted such that interim measures ordered by an arbitral tribunal seated abroad might be recognised. Such recognition would also depend on whether the interim relief is deemed enforceable under the procedural rules applicable to the arbitral proceedings in question.