MONTENEGRO Trends and Developments Contributed by: Bisera Andrijasevic and Marija Ksenija Popović, BDK Advokati
The absolute limitation period has been extended from four to six years, primarily to address the recur - rent issue of cases becoming time-barred due to the slow pace of misdemeanour proceedings, which had undermined the effectiveness and efficiency of enforcement. This model departs from the approach prevailing in EU member states, where both infringement findings and sanctions are typically concentrated within a single administrative authority. At the policy level, it is still under consideration to grant the Agency the authority to impose fines, once certain systemic and capacity- related issues in the Agency are addressed. By replac - ing the mandatory “shall be fined” standard with a discretionary “may be fined”, the Act also grants the Agency discretion as to whether to seek the imposi - tion of fines at all. In practice, this institutional division is likely to con - tinue to generate procedural inefficiencies. The sepa - ration between administrative infringement findings and judicial sanctioning has in practice already led to duplication of factual and legal assessments, as well as to extended overall timelines for case resolution. It also creates a high degree of uncertainty for under - takings, as the outcome of misdemeanour proceed - ings is not necessarily synchronised with the Agency’s findings. From a systemic perspective, this model appears increasingly out of step with the enforcement architecture envisaged by the ECN+ Directive, which seeks to equip national competition authorities with the necessary powers to ensure effective and uniform For serious competition infringements, including cartels, abuse of dominance and implementation of prohibited concentrations, fines of up to 10% of the infringer’s worldwide turnover may be imposed. The removal of the previous 1% minimum threshold for substantive infringements allows for greater propor - tionality in sanctioning. Less serious procedural infringements (such as pro - viding inaccurate information or obstructing inspec - tions) are subject to fines of up to 1% of worldwide application of EU competition rules. Fines for Substantive and Procedural Infringements
turnover, reflecting their function as tools to safeguard the integrity of enforcement proceedings. Importantly, where a concentration is implemented without clear - ance but is ultimately approved, the fine for gun‑jump - ing is also capped at 1% of worldwide turnover, sig - nificantly reducing exposure compared to the previous regime. This adjustment may recalibrate the risk assessment undertaken by parties to a concentration in relation to early implementation scenarios. While the standstill obligation remains formally unchanged, the reduction in potential penalties may lead to a more nuanced approach to issues such as interim covenants, inte - gration planning, and intra-group co-ordination prior to clearance. Nevertheless, the legal risks associated with premature implementation persist, particularly given the absence of detailed guidance or enforce - ment practice in this area. As a result, cautious struc - turing of pre-closing arrangements will remain essen - tial, even if the overall sanctioning framework is now less punitive. The Act further introduces periodic penalty payments, calculated by reference to the undertaking’s aver - age daily worldwide turnover, payable until compli - ance with procedural orders or remedial measures is achieved. This replaces the earlier fixed‑amount model. Liability of Responsible Persons: An Unresolved Omission The new Act omits the provision on the liability of responsible persons within legal entities for competi - tion law infringements. This omission is notable, par - ticularly as such liability was present under the previ - ous framework. Given that the deletion did not appear in any of the earlier draft amendment versions, it remains unclear whether this reflects a deliberate policy choice or a legislative oversight arising during consolidation. It therefore remains to be seen whether personal liabil - ity will be reintroduced in subsequent amendments.
420 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook