For companies operating in the relevant supply chains, September 1, 2026, marks a key compliance date. The applicable statute is the Trade Practices Act for Certain Types of Products (the “Act”). The Act appears in the “Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”, No. 35/2026.
The Act entered into force on May 1, 2026. Article 58 gives each entity four months to comply. This duty applies to entities in supply chains for products within the Act’s scope. Each entity must align its general terms and conditions, contracts, internal guidelines, and practices with the new rules.
In the final days before the deadline, companies should not repeat the entire compliance project. They should focus on issues that may pose the greatest legal risk. They should confirm that they correctly determined the scope and stopped prohibited practices. They should also document sensitive arrangements and ensure that business practices align with the contractual terms.
Practical checklist
For a detailed operational review, we have also prepared a PDF checklist for legal, compliance, procurement, commercial, and finance teams.
DOWNLOAD THE CHECKLIST here
The final review should first confirm whether the company correctly identified the relevant business relationships and products. It should then confirm whether the Act may apply to them.
This matters particularly as the deadline approaches. An August 2026 amendment changed the relevant Decision. The Decision concerns the List of Agricultural and Food Products and Products of Particular Importance for Market Supply. Therefore, the final review should use the Decision’s current text. An earlier internal product list may no longer be current.
The assessment should examine the buyer’s significant bargaining power, not only the product category and the buyer-supplier relationship. The review should consider relevant annual revenue thresholds and any other material circumstances.
Companies should document why they consider certain relationships to be outside the scope. At a minimum, they should record a brief legal and factual basis.
For more on scope and application, see: “New Trade Practices Act: What Companies Need to Know Before September 1, 2026.”
The Act draws a clear distinction between black-list and grey-list practices.
Article 6 always prohibits black-list practices. The parties’ agreement, case-specific circumstances, or commercial justification cannot make them lawful. The parties cannot resolve the issue simply by accepting or signing a clause that provides for such a practice.
If the compliance project identified such a practice, the final review should confirm two points. First, the company must amend the problematic wording in the contract. Second, it must stop applying the practice in actual operations.
The company should review standard contracts, purchase orders, price lists, workflows, approval systems, and commercial-team instructions.
Take particular care when the same wording or practice appears across multiple contracts or business units. An issue that initially looks isolated may reflect a systemic business practice.
Grey-list practices require a different analysis. The Act does not automatically permit them merely because it does not absolutely prohibit them.
The Act presumes these practices are unfair unless the buyer proves otherwise. Trading partners must also clearly and unambiguously agree in writing to Article 7 practices in advance. A standard clause in general terms and conditions does not satisfy this requirement. Nor does it involve another form of unilateral imposition.
Accordingly, the final review should examine individual fees, bonuses, promotions, and other arrangements. It should determine what the parties agreed to and who requested or initiated any relevant service. It should also identify what the other party received and how the parties determined the fee. Finally, it should identify documents that demonstrate compliance with the statutory conditions.
If the company cannot substantiate a key element of the arrangement, it should treat the issue as an open legal risk. It should not assume that the Act permits the practice.
See our article: “Black and Grey Lists: New Rules for Trade Practices in the Supply Chain.”
A formally compliant contract does not necessarily produce compliant business conduct. This is one of the new regime’s most important practical lessons.
In the final review, the company should pay particular attention to payment terms and unilateral changes to terms. It should also review rebates, bonuses, listing fees, administrative service fees, promotions, returns, warehousing, and other logistics fees. The review should also cover consumer complaints, quality control, and mechanisms for setting or changing prices.
However, the company should not stop after reading the clause.
The company should compare contractual documentation with invoices, purchase orders, approvals, price lists, and electronic communications. It should also compare the documents with how commercial and finance teams actually implement the arrangement.
In practice, regulatory risk often arises in the gap between the formal rule and its actual application.
If the company completes its compliance project immediately before the deadline, the legal team cannot be the only informed function. All relevant teams must understand the changes.
All functions involved in proposing, negotiating, approving, invoicing, or applying commercial terms must understand the rules.
Interim internal guidance can be particularly useful if it clearly distinguishes:
Such guidance does not replace a permanent procedure. However, it can prevent teams from reintroducing a prohibited or risky practice after the project ends.
Large organizations and complex contractual networks may still have open issues as September 1 approaches.
For each issue, the company should designate an owner and assign a risk level. It should also define the next step and a closure deadline. Finally, it should retain evidence that confirms resolution.
However, the company must distinguish a remediation plan from compliance itself.
Assigning an owner and setting an internal deadline after September 1 does not eliminate legal risk. The risk remains if the problematic practice continues in the meantime.
For each material open issue, the company should make a clear legal and operational decision. It should decide whether to continue or temporarily suspend the practice. Alternatively, it should decide which other controls to introduce immediately.
The final step involves more than orderly administration.
The company should be able to reconstruct the review after the fact. It should identify what it reviewed, who made each decision, and when each change was implemented. It should also identify the information that supported those decisions and changes.
The company should retain relevant versions of contracts and forms, legal approvals, internal instructions, and key communications. It should also retain records of open and closed issues.
Good documentation helps management understand residual risk. It also shows how the company responded when it identified a particular issue.
The compliance deadline does not create a “safe harbour” for an unfinished project. A company cannot meet the deadline merely by showing that its project is ongoing.
If a material issue remains open, the company should assess the legal consequences of continuing the specific practice. It should also select an appropriate interim measure. The project’s administrative status should not drive that analysis.
The company should resolve the highest-risk arrangements before entering into further contracts or implementing them. For other open issues, it should establish a clear plan and assign responsibility. It should also document its risk assessment and retain evidence of its implementation of corrective measures.
Before the deadline, management and relevant teams should be able to answer seven questions clearly:
Download the complete checklist.
Download our practical PDF checklist for a detailed overview: “Checklist for the Compliance Review.”
Gecić Law advises clients on applying the Trade Practices Act. Our work includes scope analysis, contract and business-process reviews, and assessments of individual fees and commercial arrangements. We also prepare internal guidelines and support clients during the final compliance review.
If issues carrying greater regulatory risk remain open near the deadline, our team can provide targeted legal analysis. We can also help prioritize issues and determine next steps.
——
Legal basis: Trade Practices Act for Certain Types of Products (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”, No. 35/2026); Decision on the List of Agricultural and Food Products and Products of Particular Importance for Market Supply (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”, Nos. 51/2026 and 73/2026); Instruction Further Regulating Unfair Trade Practices (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”, Nos. 57/2026 and 66/2026 – corr.).
We prepared this text for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter.
