COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2024 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Montenegro Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2024 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2024-07-24
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Montenegro, administrative transparency, corruption, democracy, freedom of the press, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, pluralism in the media, rule of law, whistleblowing

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 24.7.2024  SWD(2024) 829 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2024 Rule of Law Report      Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Montenegro Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2024 Rule of Law Report              The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2024) 800 final} - {SWD(2024) 801 final} - {SWD(2024) 802 final} - {SWD(2024) 803 final} - {SWD(2024) 804 final} - {SWD(2024) 805 final} - {SWD(2024) 806 final} - {SWD(2024) 807 final} - {SWD(2024) 808 final} - {SWD(2024) 809 final} - {SWD(2024) 810 final} - {SWD(2024) 811 final} - {SWD(2024) 812 final} - {SWD(2024) 813 final} - {SWD(2024) 814 final} - {SWD(2024) 815 final} - {SWD(2024) 816 final} - {SWD(2024) 817 final} - {SWD(2024) 818 final} - {SWD(2024) 819 final} - {SWD(2024) 820 final} - {SWD(2024) 821 final} - {SWD(2024) 822 final} - {SWD(2024) 823 final} - {SWD(2024) 824 final} - {SWD(2024) 825 final} - {SWD(2024) 826 final} - {SWD(2024) 827 final} - {SWD(2024) 828 final} - {SWD(2024) 830 final} - {SWD(2024) 831 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT  

The justice system of Montenegro is undergoing an intensive phase of reforms, involving the 
adoption  and  revision  of  a  comprehensive  package  of  laws,  aimed  at  addressing  systemic 
issues of independence, accountability and impartiality in the judiciary and the prosecution, 
and  at  further  alignment  with  European  and  international  standards.  In  May,  Montenegro 
adopted  a  new  judicial  reform  strategy  2024-2027.  Significant  delays  in  high-level  judicial 
appointments  have  had  an  impact  on  the  judicial  system,  however,  by  now  only  a  new 
President of the Supreme Court remains to be appointed. The promotion and enforcement of 
ethics  and  professional  standards  among  judges  and  prosecutors  remains  a  challenge.  The 
effectiveness  of  the  judiciary  is  hampered  by  the  lack  of  strategic  investment  in  human 
resources, ICT and infrastructure. Serious challenges exist regarding the efficiency of justice, 
where the length of proceedings for administrative cases has further increased. 

A new 2024-2028 strategy for the fight against corruption was adopted in June 2024, along 
with its 2024-2025 Action Plan. Montenegro criminalises most forms of corruption. The track 
record of investigations and prosecutions in cases of high-level corruption is stable, but the 
lack  of  trials  and  final  decisions  contributes  to  a  perception  of  impunity.  The  Special 
Prosecution  Office  (SPO)  has  significantly  improved  its  performance  over  the  past  years, 
although  its  human  resources  are  insufficient  to  cope  with  its  workload.  While  numerous 
institutions have specific codes of conduct, the Government’s Code of Conduct is ineffective, 
pending  the  adoption  of  the  Law  on  Government  with  disciplinary  penalties.  The  new 
legislation  on  lobbying  was  adopted  on  6  June.  The  legal  framework  regulating  political 
parties’ funding is hampered by shortcomings in its scope, clarity and implementation. 

Montenegro  adopted  in  June  a  comprehensive  legislative  package  on  media  pluralism  and 
media  freedom,  consisting  of  amendments  to  the  Law  on  the  National  Public  Broadcaster 
(RTCG),  a  new  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Law,  and  a  new  Media  Law.  It  introduces 
improvements on transparency of media ownership and other systemic areas, aiming to align 
it with the EU acquis. The new legislation grants new powers to the Agency for Audiovisual 
Media  Services  (AAVMS)  addressing  the  long-standing  challenge  of  its  effectiveness  to 
enforce the regulatory framework by granting it with comprehensive sanctioning instruments, 
including the power to impose fines in case of violations of the law. Information on all public 
sector  payments  made  to  media  outlets,  including  institutional  advertising,  is  limited.  The 
appointment of the Director-General of the RTCG by the RTCG Council has been challenged 
in  court.  While  access  to  information  and  public  documents  is  legally  guaranteed  in 
Montenegro,  it  has  limitations  in  practice.  The  authorities  generally  provide  effective  law 
enforcement and institutional responses to new cases of violence against journalists, but there 
was no effective judicial follow-up of emblematic past cases.  

While  the  Ombudsperson’s  Office  has  enhanced  its  capacity  to  handle  complaints  and 
improve the quality of decisions, the absence of systematic follow-up to its recommendations 
undermines  the  efficiency  of  its  work.  Despite  an  established  framework  for  inclusive 
legislative  processes,  challenges  remain  concerning  inadequate  public  consultations.  The 
implementation  of  the  Strategy  for  Cooperation  of  State  Administration  Bodies  and  Non-
Governmental  Organisations  2022-2026  has  not  yet  led  to  improvement  in  respect  of  civil 
society.  

1 

 
 
 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The  judicial  system  of  Montenegro  consists  of  twenty-five  courts  of  both  general  and 
specialised jurisdiction and is organised in a three-tiered system1. The first instance courts of 
general  jurisdiction  comprise  15  basic  courts  dealing  with  civil,  labour, and  criminal  cases. 
Two  high  courts  adjudicate  appeals  against  decisions  of  basic  courts  but  also  have 
competences  as  first  instance  courts2.  There  are  two  courts  of  specialised  jurisdiction,  the 
Commercial  Court  and  the  Administrative  Court.  The  Appellate  Court  decides  on  appeals 
against first-instance decisions of high courts, as well as on appeals against decisions of the 
Commercial  Court.  Montenegro  has  a  two-tiered  misdemeanour  court  system  comprised  of 
three  basic  misdemeanour  courts  and  one  high  misdemeanour  court. The  Supreme  Court  is 
the highest court and deals with all types of litigation. The Constitutional Court is responsible 
for protecting the constitutional order, and human rights and freedoms3. The independence of 
the judiciary and the autonomy of the prosecution service are enshrined in the Constitution4. 
The Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils are responsible for ensuring the independence of the 
courts  and  the  autonomy  of  the  prosecution  service  and  are  competent  for  the  appointment 
and careers of judges and prosecutors5. The Prosecutorial Council is a self-governance body, 
whose members are appointed by Parliament. Procedural safeguards aimed at preserving the 
autonomy  and  independence  of  State  Prosecutors  are  regulated  by  law,  including  the 
procedures  for  giving  instructions  to  prosecutors  from  the  prosecution  service  and 
withdrawing cases from them6.Working arrangements with the European Public Prosecutor’s 

Input from Montenegro for the 2024 Rule of Law Report, p. 1. 

1 
2  This  concerns  criminal  proceedings  punishable  by  law  by  imprisonment  over  10  years,  organised  crime, 
high-level  corruption,  money  laundering,  terrorism  and  war  crimes.  Article  16  of  the  Law  on  courts  of 
Montenegro, 2015. 

3  The Constitutional Court has seven judges, elected by the Parliament of Montenegro with qualified majority; 
two judges are nominated by the President of Montenegro and five by the relevant parliamentary body. The 
President  of  the  Constitutional  Court  is  elected  for  amongst  the  judges  for  the  period  of  three  years. 
Constitution of Montenegro, Article 153. 

4  Constitution of Montenegro, Article 118, Article 135. 
5  The  Constitution  of  Montenegro,  the  Law  on  the  Judicial  Council  and  Judges  and  the  Law  on  the  State 
Prosecution  Service  regulate  the  Judicial  and  Prosecutorial  Councils.  As  laid  out  in  Article  127  of  the 
Constitution,  the  Judicial  Council  is  composed  of  a  president  and  nine  members,  which  include  (i)  the 
President of the Supreme Court; (ii) four judges to be elected and released from duty by the Conference of 
Judges, taking into account equal representation of courts and judges; (iii) four lay members from reputable 
lawyers elected and released from duty by the Parliament at proposal of the competent working body of the 
Parliament  upon  announced  public  invitation;  (iv)  Minister  in  charge  of  judicial  affairs. The  Prosecutorial 
Council  secures  the  independence  of  the  State  Prosecutor’s  Office.  It  is  composed  of  11  members:  (i)  the 
President (the Supreme State Prosecutor ex officio); (ii) five prosecutorial members (prosecutors elected by 
their peers according to the quotas of representation of different levels and types of prosecution offices); (iii) 
four  lay  members,  including  two  eminent  lawyers,  one  experienced  attorney  proposed  by  the  Bar 
Association, and one distinguished lawyer nominated by NGOs, elected by Parliament by a simple majority 
of  votes;  and  (iv)  one  member  delegated  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice.  Law  on  State  Prosecution  Service, 
Article 18.  

6  The  Law  on  State  Prosecution  Service  prescribes  that,  for  the  uniform  application  of  the  law,  mandatory 
instructions  for  work  may  be  issued.  Mandatory  instructions  for  work  include  general  instructions  and 
instructions for handling individual cases. General instructions are issued by the Supreme State Prosecutor, 
and  the  head  of  the  state  prosecution  can  initiate  their  adoption.  General  instructions  are  given  in  written 
form.  Instructions  for  handling  individual  cases  are  given  by:  1)  the  Supreme  State  Prosecutor  for  state 
prosecutors from the Supreme State Prosecution Office, for the Chief Special Prosecutor, for heads of higher 
and  basic  state  prosecutions;  2)  the  Chief  Special  Prosecutor  for  special  prosecutors  from  the  Special 

2 

 
 
 
 
Office  (EPPO)  are  in  place7. The  Montenegrin  Bar Association  is  an  autonomous  and  self-
regulating  professional  body  responsible  for  overseeing  the  registration  of  lawyers  and 
regulating their professional conduct, including handling disciplinary proceedings8. 

Independence  

The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  in  Montenegro  is  low  among  the  general 
public and very low among companies. Overall, 35% of the general population and 28% of 
companies perceive the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very good’ 
in  20249.  The  main  reason  cited  by  companies  for  the  perceived  lack  of  independence  of 
courts  and  judges  is  the  perception  of  interference  or  pressure  from  the  Government  and 
politicians10. 

The  legal  framework  guaranteeing  the  independence  and  impartiality  of  the  judicial 
system  has  been  revised.  The  European  Commission  and  the  Venice  Commission 
highlighted that the previously applicable laws, namely the Law on the Judicial Council and 
Judges,  and  the  Law  on  the  State  Prosecution  Service,  had  to  be  brought  in  line  with 
European standards on the composition, appointment, promotion, and professional evaluation 
of judges11. In April 2024, as part of the work to meet the interim benchmarks12, Montenegro 
submitted  draft  amendments  to  the  Law  on  Judicial  Council  and  Judges  to  the  Venice 
Commission for an urgent opinion, which was delivered in May13. These amendments were 
adopted by Parliament in June 2024. Both, the Law on Judicial Council and Judges, and the 
Law  on  State  Prosecution  Service  are  now  broadly  in  line  with  European  standards14.  At 
present,  one of the key issues to  be remedied is  the role of the Minister of Justice as an  ex 

Prosecution  Office;  3)  the  head  of  the  higher  state  prosecution  for  state  prosecutors  from  that  prosecution 
and  heads  of  basic  state  prosecution  offices  within  their  area  of  jurisdiction;  4)  heads  of  basic  state 
prosecutions for state prosecutors from those prosecution offices.  

7   A cooperation agreement between the EPPO and the Supreme State Prosecutor Office was signed in 2022. 
EPPO  (2022),  Press  Release  22.09.2022,  –  EPPO  signs  working  arrangement  with  Supreme  State 
Prosecutor’s Office of Montenegro.  
Input from Montenegro for the 2024 Rule of Law Report, p. 5. 

8 
9   Eurobarometer  survey  FL540,  conducted  among  the  general  public  between  14  February  and  27  February 
2024,  and  Eurobarometer  survey  FL541,  conducted  among  companies  between  14  February  and  5  March 
2024.  The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  is  categorised  as  follows:  very  low  (below  30%  of 
respondents perceive judicial independence as fairly good and very good); low (between 30-39%), average 
(between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

10  Eurobarometer survey FL541, conducted among companies between 14 February and 5 March 2024. 
11  In  its  previous  Opinions,  the Venice  Commission  outlined  several  elements  for  Montenegro  to  address  in 
order  to  bring  the  current  rules  in  line  with  European  standards.  The  issues  concerned  the  manner  of 
regulating the work-related rights of the judges, including the retirement age and pension rights; limiting the 
use  of  the  temporary  anti-deadlock  mechanisms  for  key  appointments  to  specific  exceptional  events; 
bringing  the  evaluation  and  disciplinary  proceedings  of  judges  in  line  with  European  Standards  and 
reinforcing  the  independence  of  the  Judicial  Council  and  the  legal  guarantees  to  avoid  undue  political 
influence. Venice Commission Opinion CDL-AD(2023)011; CDL-REF(2023)016; CDL-AD(2022)050. This 
was also part of the 2023 Communication on enlargement policy, Montenegro report, p. 22-23. 

12  Interim benchmarks were set out in the EU common position to open accession negotiations for Montenegro 
by  the  EU  Member  States.  In  line  with  the  revised  methodology,  Chapters  23  and  24  are  part  of  the 
fundamentals.  It  is  only  after  these  interim  benchmarks  are  met,  that  Montenegro  can  start  closing  other 
negotiating chapters and move forward in the accession process. 

13  Venice Commission Opinion CDL-PI(2024)007.  
14   European Commission (2024) Interim benchmark assessment Report on Montenegro. 

3 

 
 
 
officio  member  of  the  Judicial  Council  with  comprehensive  voting  rights,  save  for 
“disciplinary  proceedings  related  to  accountability  of  judges”15,  which  would  require  a 
constitutional  amendment16.  Another  relevant  standard  regarding  the  composition  of  the 
Judicial  Council  is  that  judges  chosen  by  their  peers  must  make  up  at  least  half  of  its 
members.  Since  ex-officio  judge  members  do  not  count  in  this  regard,  in  the  present 
composition of the Judicial Council, the number of judges selected by their peers are still less 
than half17. Draft amendments to the Law on the State Prosecution Service were prepared to 
strengthen  the  independence  of  the  Prosecutorial  Council  and  they  were  sent  to  the Venice 
Commission,  in  April  2024,  for  an  opinion18.  These  amendments,  which  were  adopted  by 
Parliament  in  June  2024,  concern  in  particular  the  procedure  for  appointing  the  non-judge 
members  of  the  Prosecutorial  Council,  in  order  to  mitigate  the  risks  of  politicisation  of  the 
Prosecutorial  Council  resulting  from  the  current  simple  majority  mode  of  election  in 
Parliament19.  The  Constitution  does  not  prescribe  the  composition  of  the  Prosecutorial 
Council and the method of election of its members. In the view of the Venice Commission, 
such an explicit indication would be a more sustainable solution20.  

Significant delays in high-level judicial appointments have ultimately had an impact on 
the  judicial  system,  although  by  now  only  a  new  President  of  the  Supreme  Court 
remains  to  be  appointed.  Following  a  long  period  of  political  standstill21,  during  which  a 

15  Constitution of Montenegro, Article 128 (3). See also Venice Commission Opinion CDL-AD(2022)050 with 
further  references.  Moreover,  GRECO  recommended  that  the  Minister  of  Justice  should  not  feature  in  the 
composition of the Judicial Council, or at least that his/her right to take part in voting on career related issues 
(transfer,  appointment,  dismissal,  appraisal)  should  be  limited.  In  its  2020  4th  Evaluation  Round  on 
Corruption prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors, GRECO recommended 
(i) taking additional measures to strengthen the Judicial Council’s independence – both real and perceived – 
against  undue  political  influence,  including  by  abolishing  the  ex-officio  participation  of  the  Minister  of 
Justice in the  Council, by providing for no less than half of the Council’s membership to be composed of 
judges who are elected by their peers and by ensuring that the presiding function is given to one of those 
judicial members, p. 4. 

16   Montenegro  has  committed  to  withdraw  the  presence  of  the  Minister  of  Justice  from  the  Council.  The 
Minister  is  no  longer  taking  part  in  the  meetings  of  the  Judicial  Council  since  9  February  2024  and  has 
issued on 24 May 2024 a formal Decision by which he recuses himself from participating in the work of the 
Judicial  Council,  to  offer  the  necessary  legal  guarantees  pending  the  outstanding  legislative  and 
constitutional  changes  to  bring  the  Constitution  in  line  with  European  Standards  including  Venice 
Commission  and  GRECO  recommendations  with  regard  to  the  composition  of  the  Council.  Finally,  the 
Prime  Minister  informed  in  a  letter  to  the  European  Commission  of  the  Government’s  support  to  this 
decision,  which  was  recorded  in  the  official  minutes  of  the  Government’s  session  on  24  May  2024,  and 
which counts with cross-party consensus.  

17   Not less than half the members of such councils should be judges chosen by their peers from all levels of the 
judiciary  and  with  respect  for  pluralism  inside  the  judiciary.  Council  of  Europe  (2010),  Recommendation 
CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe  on  judges:  independence, 
efficiency  and  responsibilities,  paragraph  27;  The  ex  officio  judges  do  not  count  as  peer  elected  judges. 
Venice  Commission opinion (CDL-AD(2020)035), paragraph 44. For composition of the Judicial Council, 
see footnote 5 above. 

18  Venice Commission Opinion CDL-REF(2024)011. 
19  Venice  Commission  Opinion  CDL-AD(2021)0302021;  CDL-AD(2021)030;  CDL-PI(2021)008;  CDL-

AD(2021)012. 2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Montenegro Report, pp. 22-23. 

20   Venice Commission Opinion CDL-PI(2024)012, paragraph 23. 
21  Until  October  31,  2023,  when  Prime  Minister  Spajić’s  new  Government  assumed  office,  Montenegro 
endured a prolonged period of political stagnation and profound polarisation. During this time, a caretaker 
Government governed, as the Parliament struggled to muster a stable majority. 2023 Communication on  EU 
Enlargement policy, Montenegro Report, pp. 3. 

4 

 
 
 
number of high-level posts were vacant or occupied ad interim beyond the legal time limit22, 
on  27  February  2023  Parliament  appointed  three  judges  to  the  Constitutional  Court, 
reinstating the Court’s decision-making quorum of four judges. The absence of quorum since 
September  2022,  had  not  only  undermined  the  Court’s  efficiency  and  ability  to  function 
properly, but had also led to delays in confirming election results, raising concerns about its 
role within the country’s fundamental democratic structures23. In November 2023, Parliament 
appointed  the  seventh  judge  to  the  Constitutional  Court,  restoring  its  full  composition.  In 
addition, in December 2023, three lay members (i.e. non-judges) to the Judicial Council were 
appointed  by  Parliament24,  replacing  those  whose  mandate  expired  in  2018,  including  the 
Council’s acting president25. Since 2018, the Judicial Council had been operating despite the 
expiration  of  the  mandate  of  part  of  its  members  based  on  a  temporary  anti-deadlock 
mechanism. The Judicial Council appointed its new President in December 2023. In January 
2024, the Parliament appointed a new Supreme  State Prosecutor. The only  remaining  high-
level  judicial  appointment  is  a  new  full-time  President  of  the  Supreme  Court,  whose 
appointment  by  the  Judicial  Council  is  pending  since  December  2020.  In  addition,  many 
judicial  and  prosecutorial  vacant  positions  still  need  to  be  filled26.  Currently,  there  are  58 
vacant  judicial  positions  and  56  vacant  prosecutorial  positions  (out  of  329  positions  for 
judges and 141 positions for prosecutors)27. Furthermore, stakeholders reported instances of 
undue  influence  and  public  attacks  on  the  legal  profession  caused  by  derogatory  public 
comments  by  Government  officials,  and  targeting  individual  lawyers  and  the  State 
Prosecutor’s Office, which may contribute to undermining the public trust in the judiciary28.  

The promotion and enforcement of ethics and professional standards among judges and 
prosecutors  remains  a  challenge.  Montenegro  is  expected  to  amend  the  disciplinary  and 
ethical  legal  framework  for  judges  and  prosecutors  and  to  strengthen  the  accountability  of 
judges and prosecutors29. Since August 2022, the Ethical Commission of the Judicial Council 
has  not  fulfilled  its  duties  by  refraining  from  issuing  decisions  on  any  of  the  19  pending 

22   These  extended  mandates 

legitimacy,  accountability, 
professionalism and stability of the judiciary. 2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Montenegro 
Report,  pp.  21-27.  OHCHR  (2023),  Press  release  26.09.2023,  Montenegro:  Failure  to  ensure  judicial 
independence hindering access to justice, says UN expert. 

reflected  adversely  on 

independence, 

the 

23  Prior to the restoration of the quorum, the Constitutional Court was unable to adjudicate appeals regarding 
the local election results held on 23 October 2022. This hindered the establishment of local governments in 
specific  municipalities  and  compromised  the  full  and  effective  legal  protection  of  voting  rights.  2023 
Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Montenegro Report, p. 10. 

24  These  three  members  were  elected  as  members  of  the  Judicial  Council  from  the  group  of  lawyers,  at  the 

session of the Parliament on 21 December 2023. 

25  The President of the Judicial Council and the deputy were elected at the constituent session of the Judicial 

Council of Montenegro on 29 December 2023. 

26  Mina News (2024), Press release 10.03.2024, Korać: I expect that we will receive a proposal for a candidate 

for the president of the Supreme Court. 

27   Judicial Court of Montenegro (2023), Annual work report on the Judicial Council and total statement in the 
Court for 2023; 2023 Annual Report of the Prosecutorial Council (2024); Information received in context of 
the country visit to Montenegro from the Ministry of Justice. 

28  Successive  press  releases  by  the  Bar Association  from  6  July  2023, 17  July 2023,  24  January 2024  and  2 
February 2024, claiming undue influence, attacks on the legal profession and targeting of individual lawyers 
and the  State Prosecutor’s Office  as a whole, including in response to statements made by the Minister of 
Internal Affairs and Minister of Justice. Information received in context of the country visit to Montenegro 
from the Montenegro Bar Association. 

29   2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Montenegro Report, pp. 27-28. 

5 

 
 
 
cases30.  While  the  decisions  of  the  Ethical  Commission  are  grounded  on  violations  of  the 
Ethical Code and require comprehensive justification, there is still no legal recourse available 
for  judges  to  challenge  its  decisions,  as  required  by  law31.  The  Ethical  Commission  of  the 
Prosecutorial Council resumed its operations in September 2022, addressing several pending 
cases32. It currently has four cases under review. The disciplinary practice of the Judicial and 
Prosecutorial  Councils  in  sanctioning  judges  and  prosecutors  for  not  submitting  reports  on 
assets  and  incomes  to  the  Agency  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  (ACA)  has  proven 
effective at the level of misdemeanours proceedings, however, there have been no convictions 
of  judges  and  prosecutors  based  on  criminal  proceedings  arising  from  checks  of  asset 
declarations.  There  is  scope  to  continue  improving  the  verification  of  asset  declarations  of 
judges  and  prosecutors  by  providing  for  substantive  checks  of  such  declarations  by  the 
Agency,  as  well  as  the  effective  disciplinary  practice  of  the  Judicial  and  Prosecutorial 
Councils for failure to submit assets and income declaration reports to the Agency33. As for 
the enforcement of the judicial inspection system34, incorporating more thorough and surprise 
inspections, presents a challenge35. Progress in implementing new ethical codes for notaries, 
public  bailiffs,  and  court  interpreters  has  been  modest36  and  the  proposed  Draft  Code  of 
Ethics for Lawyers is pending adoption by the Bar Association37.  

30   Situation on pending cases as of 14 March 2024. 
31  Judicial Court of Montenegro (2023), Annual work report on the Judicial Council and total statement in the 

Court for 2023. 

32  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Montenegro Report, p. 27. 
33   European Commission (2024) Interim benchmark assessment Report on Montenegro. According to the Law 
on Prevention of Corruption, judges and prosecutors have the obligation to declare their assets and income 
each  year  and  to  report  on  possible  conflicts  of  interest.  These  declarations  are  checked  by  the  Anti-
Corruption  Agency,  which  performs  three  levels  of  checks  for  these  declarations  from  public  officials: 
fulfilment of the obligation to submit declarations; accuracy and completeness; and in-depth verification for 
declarations of high-ranking public officials each year based on the degree of risk. In December 2023, the 
Agency adopted a step-by-step methodology for the in-depth verification of assets and income declarations 
based on European best practice, which introduces a risk-based approach for initiating cases ex officio, thus 
improving the accuracy, quality, efficiency, and impartiality of the Agency’s work in this area. However, the 
Agency  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  (ACA)  limits  its  verification  of  these  asset  declarations  to  the 
fulfilment  of  the  legal  obligation  to  submit  asset  declarations,  and  a  failure  to  do  so  only  results  in 
administrative and misdemeanor proceedings. Law on Prevention of Corruption (OG, 53/2014 and 42/2017). 
34   The  Ministry  of  Justice  has  its  own  inspection  system,  which  conducts  both  announced  and  unannounced 
inspections.  In  December  2023,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  established  a  new  Directorate  for  Judicial 
Supervision,  expanding  its  staff  to  include  a  general  director  and  eight  inspectors.  European  Commission 
(2024) Interim benchmark assessment Report on Montenegro. 

35   In  the  first half of 2023, Ministry of Justice judicial inspectors conducted inspections in 10 courts and six 
prosecution offices, detecting no irregularities. In 2022, similar inspections were carried out in 20 courts and 
16  prosecution  offices.  Furthermore,  an  extraordinary  inspection  was  conducted  at  the  High  Court  in 
Podgorica  at the acting President of the Supreme Court’s request. These inspections revealed a total of 15 
irregularities,  with  8  found  in  court  operations  and  7  in  prosecution  offices.  2023  Communication  on  EU 
Enlargement policy, Montenegro Report, p. 28. 

36  The Assembly of Chamber of Notaries of Montenegro adopted the Code of Notary Ethics on 28 December 
2020. The Assembly  of  Chamber  of  Public  Bailiffs  of  Montenegro  adopted  the  Code  of  Ethics  for  Public 
Bailiffs on 27 November 2019. The Montenegrin Association of Interpreters adopted the Code of Interpreters 
on 28 January 2021. 

37   The Bar Association still uses the Code of Professional Ethics of Lawyers adopted on 16 January 1999 by 

the Yugoslav Bar Association. 

6 

 
 
 
 
Quality 

The  judicial  system  of  Montenegro  is  undergoing  an  intensive  phase  of  reforms, 
involving  the  revision  of  several  laws,  aimed  at  further  alignment  with  European  and 
international  standards.  The  Judicial  Reform  Strategy  2024-202738,  along  with  an 
accompanying action plan for the period 2024-2025, prepared by the Ministry of Justice, was 
adopted in May 202439. The Strategy aims, in particular, to strengthen the quality, efficiency 
and independence of the judicial system, to improve access to justice and to increase trust in 
the  judicial  system40.  The  Government  has  established  a  new  Council  for  monitoring  its 
implementation,  which  includes  representatives  of  the  main  stakeholders  of  the  executive, 
judiciary  and  state  prosecution  service.  The  action  plan  for  the  period  2024-2025  foresees 
amendments  to  the  Law  on  Judicial  Council  and  Judges,  the  Law  on  State  Prosecution 
Service, Law on the Special State Prosecutor’s Office, Law on Amendments to the Law on 
Courts and to the Criminal Procedure Code; which were adopted in June 2024. In addition, 
the  preparatory  work  within  the  Government  on  amendments  to  the  Criminal  Code  is 
ongoing41.  

The  effectiveness  of  the  judiciary  is  hampered  by  the  lack  of  strategic  investment  in 
human  resources,  ICT  and  infrastructure.  A  new  Plan  for  the  Rationalisation  of  the 
Judicial  network  has  been  adopted  by  the  Government  on  17  May  202442.  The  Judicial 
Council has adopted a plan to upgrade the court information system (PRIS), which is used for 
case allocation, tracking, management, and communication with parties. This upgrade, which 
will  be  rolled  out  in  the  coming  period,  aims  to  revise  the  existing  random  case  allocation 
procedure, further improving the efficiency of case allocation and the use of judicial statistics. 
Additionally,  it  plans  to  expand  the  use  of  PRIS  to  misdemeanour  courts.  The  upgrade  is 
scheduled for completion in the first quarter of 202543. Moreover, the collection of statistical 
data  across  courts  in  compliance  with  the  European  Commission  for  Efficiency  of  Justice 
(CEPEJ) remains a challenge44. Furthermore, the lack of specialised judges and prosecutors, 
the lack of expertise in certain areas45, and the shortage of judges in courts, negatively impact 
the effectiveness of the random allocation of cases envisaged by PRIS46. The lack of specific 

38  Government of Montenegro (2024), Justice Reform Strategy 2024-2027. 
39  Information received in context of the country visit to Montenegro from the Ministry of Justice; Input from 

Montenegro for the 2024 Rule of Law Report, p. 3. 

40  It also underwent a 20-day public consultation during January, after which a round table was organised on 24 

January. Input from Montenegro for the 2024 Rule of Law Report, p. 3.  

41  The Action Plan also includes future adoption of amendments to the Law on regulating financial position of 
judges and public prosecutors, Law on Bailiffs, Law on Court Experts, Law of Civil Code of Procedure, Law 
on  Execution  and  Security  of  Claims,  Law  on  Administrative  Procedure,  Law  on  Alternative  Dispute 
Resolution,  Law  on  International  Mutual  Assistance,  Law  on  Amendments  to  the  Law  on  Judicial 
Cooperation  in  Criminal  Matters  Law  on  Free  Legal  Aid,  Law  on  Treatment  of  Juveniles  in  Criminal 
Proceedings,  and  Law  on  Family  violence.  Government  of  Montenegro  (2024),  Justice  Reform  Strategy 
2024-2027; information received in context of the country visit to Montenegro from the Ministry of Justice.  

42  Information received in the context of the country visit to Montenegro from the Ministry of Justice. 
43  European Commission (2024) Interim benchmark assessment Report on Montenegro. 
44   2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Montenegro Report, p. 30. 
45  Information received in the context of the country visit to Montenegro from the Special State Prosecutor’ s 

Office. 

46  2022 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Montenegro Report, p. 22. 

7 

 
 
 
 
skills also poses a challenge to recruitment47, which is further undermined by uncompetitive 
salaries48.  The  2023  annual  budget  for  the  judiciary  was  EUR  30.6  million49,  which 
stakeholders considered insufficient50. Furthermore, at all levels of the judiciary, the allocated 
working  spaces  and  working  conditions  including  equipment,  are  considered  inadequate51. 
This  is  notably the case  of the Special  State Prosecution Office52. Against this background, 
challenges  exist  on  strategic  investment  in  physical  infrastructure53,  ICT,  and  human 
resources54.  

Reflections  are  underway  to  improve  the  communication  and  transparency  of  the 
Judicial  and  Prosecutorial  Councils.  While  sessions  of  the  Judicial  and  Prosecutorial 
Councils  are  open  to  the  public  and  both  Councils  are  developing  strategic  documents  to 
enhance  public  communication55,  neither  of  them  fully  publishes  reasoned  decisions  on 
promotions, appointments, and disciplinary cases.  

Efficiency 

Serious  challenges  exist  regarding  the  efficiency  of  justice,  where  the  length  of 
proceedings  for  administrative  cases  has  further  increased.  In  2022,  the  clearance  rates 
for civil, commercial, administrative, and criminal cases were below 90% for both first and 
second instance courts56. Especially for first instance administrative cases, the clearance rate 
was very low at 40%, and with a very high disposition time of 1 180 days. According to the 
authorities, these developments are caused by a rise of complaints about applying the Law on 
Free  Access  to  Information  and  the  related  increase  of  administrative  cases  in  2022.  A 
significant decrease in terms of clearance rates and increase of disposition times was recorded 
between  2021  to  2022  across  all  case  categories  and  for  both  first  and  second  instance 
cases57.  The  Constitutional  Court  has  to  address  a  considerable  backlog  of  constitutional 

47  There is often only a little pool of candidates fulfilling the specific profile sought.  Information received in 

the context of the country visit to Montenegro from the Special State Prosecutor’s Office. 

48  Stakeholders emphasised the necessity of enhancing the appeal of judicial careers, including through a raise 
in  current  salaries.  Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Montenegro  from  the 
Ombudsperson’ s Office, Special State Prosecutor’s Office and civil society organisations. 

49   Judicial Court of Montenegro (2023), Annual work report on the Judicial Council and total statement in the 

Court for 2023. 

50  Information received in the context of the country visit to Montenegro  from the Special State Prosecutor’s 

Office. 

51  Information received in the context of the country visit to Montenegro from the Special State Prosecutor’s 

Office. 

52  Information received in the context of the country visit to Montenegro  from the Special State Prosecutor’s 

Office. 

53   The  spatial  capacity  of  courts  is  limited,  and  their  facilities  are  inadequate,  with  certain  areas  lacking 
elevator access, thereby impeding individuals’ ability to exercise their right to access the courts. Information 
provided in context of the country visit to Montenegro by the Ombudsperson’s Office. 

54  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Montenegro Report, p. 30. 
55  2023  Communication  on  EU  Enlargement  policy,  Montenegro  Report,  p.  24.  Information  on  public 
communication  documents  will  be  mentioned  in  this  year’s  annual  report.  Information  was  received  from 
Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils. 

56  CEPEJ (2022), Dashboard Western Balkans. Beneficiary Profile Montenegro – 2022 Date Collection, p. 16. 
Clearance rate in 2022 was 86%, and 89% for civil and commercial cases, 40% and 91% for administrative 
cases, and 81% and 83% for criminal cases respectively for first and second instance.  

57  For first instance cases, the clearance rate for civil and commercial cases declined by 6 percent points, and 
the disposition time increased by 16.1%. For criminal cases, the clearance rate declined by 20 percent points, 

8 

 
 
 
 
complaints and requests for reviewing the constitutionality of laws and other legal acts that 
have  accumulated  since  February,  as  a  result  of  its  incomplete  composition  between 
September 2022 and February 202358. 

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The  independent Agency  for  Prevention  of  Corruption  is  the  key  institution  for  promoting 
integrity  and  preventing  corruption59. The  main  investigative  anti-corruption  bodies  are  the 
Department for the Fight Against Organised Crime and Corruption within the Criminal Police 
Sector of the Police Directorate60, and the Special State Prosecutor`s Office within the State 
Prosecution  Service  that  has  the  jurisdiction  for  prosecution  of  perpetrators  of  corruption-
related  criminal  offences61.  Other  institutions  that  contribute  to  the  fight  against  corruption 
include  the  Financial  Investigations  Unit  (FIU)  and  the  Administration  for  Prevention  of 

and disposition time increased by 19.5%. For second instance, the clearance rate decreased by 14, 0.9 and 
9.9 percent points for civil and commercial, administrative and criminal cases respectively. The disposition 
time increased by 68% for civil and commercial cases, by 28,4% for administrative cases, and 194,9% for 
criminal cases.  

58  In February 2023, after the Parliament appointed three judges, the Constitutional Court resumed its work on 
a backlog of over 3 000 constitutional complaints and over 250 initiatives for reviewing the constitutionality 
of  laws  and other  legal  acts. 2023  Communication  on  EU Enlargement  policy,  Montenegro  Report,  p. 22; 
information received in the context of the country visit to Montenegro from the Constitutional Court. 

59   The legislative framework for prevention of corruption in Montenegro consists of the Law on Prevention of 
Corruption (OG 53/14, 42/17, 73/23), the Law on Financing of Political Entities and Election Campaigns 
(OG 3/20, 38/20) and the Law on Lobbying (OG 52/14) which regulate the work of the Anti-Corruption 
Agency (ACA). ACA was established in January 2016 and took over the responsibilities of the Directorate 
for Anti-Corruption Initiative and the Commission for Prevention of Conflict of Interest which then ceased 
to exist. The ACA’s managing bodies are the ACA Council and the Director. At the proposal of the Anti-
Corruption Committee of the Parliament of Montenegro, the Parliament elects the members of the ACA 
Council which then appoints the Director. ACA is responsible for implementing measures to prevent conflict 
of public and private interest (Article 9 of the Law on prevention of corruption), restrictions in the exercise 
of public functions (Article 11 of the Law on prevention of corruption), collecting and checking the reports 
on assets and income of public officials (Article 25 of the Law on prevention of corruption), receiving and 
acting upon whistleblower reports (Articles 48-64 of the Law on prevention of corruption), and protecting 
whistle-blowers (Articles 65-72 of the Law on prevention of corruption). The Agency also has 
responsibilities to implement the Law on financing of political entities and election campaigns (Article 4) 
and the Law on Lobbying (Article 47). 

60   The Department carries out activities related to: monitoring and analysing the situation and trends of 

organised crime; monitoring and analysing international criminal groups related to Montenegrin perpetrators 
of criminal activity; defining centres of organised crime; identifying, monitoring and studying organised 
crime; carrying out risk assessments and damage caused by organised crime; implementing operational 
activities in relation to groups and individuals; initiating at the Special Prosecutor’s Office the application of 
special investigative techniques; directly participating in identifying of assets gained through crime and their 
seizure; proposing preventive measures within the competence of criminal police, in relation to organized 
crime; implementing international police cooperation in specific cases and in that sense, the law enforcement 
agencies of countries from the region and beyond, establishing a network of contacts to ensure timely 
exchange of operational and other data about Montenegrin citizens, etc.  

61   High-level  corruption:  a)  if  a  public  official  committed  the  following  criminal  offences:  abuse  of  office, 
fraud  in  the  conduct  of  an  official  duty,  trading  in  influence,  inciting  to  engage  in  trading  in  influence, 
passive  and  active  bribery;  b)  if  the  proceeds  of  crime  exceeding  the  amount  of  EUR  40 000  have  been 
obtained by committing the following criminal offences: abuse of position in business undertakings; abuse of 
authority in economy. Law on the Special State Prosecutor’s Office (OG 10/15, 53/16). 

9 

 
 
 
Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, as well as the Tax Administration.  In addition, 
there is an Anti-Corruption Committee in the Parliament.  

The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in 
the  public  sector  is  high.  In  the  2023  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  by  Transparency 
International, Montenegro scores 46/100 and ranks 63rd globally62. This perception remained 
relatively stable63 over the past five years. 

A new 2024-2028 strategy for the fight against corruption was adopted on 4 June 2024, 
along  with  its  2024-2025  Action  Plan.  A  new  National  Council  for  the  Fight  against 
Corruption  was  established  in  February  2024.  The  Deputy  Prime  Minister64  will  chair  the 
Council65.  Its  main  task  has  been  the  preparation  of  the  new  strategy,  adopted  on  4  June, 
along with its 2024-2025 action plan Following the strategy’s adoption, the Council monitors 
and reports on its implementation.  

Montenegro criminalises most forms of corruption. The Criminal Code provides for active 
and  passive  bribery  concerning  public  officials66,  and  also  covers  bribery  committed  by  a 
foreign  public  official67.  Montenegro  has  a  broad  legal  and  regulatory  framework  in  place 
covering  most  corruption  crimes  of  the  UN  Convention  against  Corruption  (UNCAC),  to 
which Montenegro is a Party. Montenegro is not a signatory party to the OECD Anti-Bribery 
Convention68.  Montenegro  criminalises  embezzlement  and  unauthorised  use  (also  in  the 
private sector) as well as trading in influence and offences of abuse of office69.  

The track record of investigations and prosecutions in cases of high-level corruption is 
stable, but the lack of trials and final decisions contributes to a perception of impunity. 

62   Transparency International (2024), Corruption Perceptions Index 2023. The level of perceived corruption is 

categorised as follows: low (the perception among experts and business executives of public sector 
corruption scores above 79); relatively low (scores between 79-60), relatively high (scores between 59-50), 
high (scores below 50). 

63   In 2019, the score was 45, while in 2023, the score was 46. The score significantly increases/decreases when 
it changes more than five points; improves/deteriorates (changes between 4-5 points) is relatively stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

64   Besides the Deputy Prime Minister, the National Council includes 8 Ministers, heads of the Anti-Corruption 
Agency (ASK), National Security Agency (ANB), Customs Administration, Tax Administration, Supreme 
State Prosecutor, Chief Special Prosecutor, Supreme Court President, representatives of the Chamber of 
Commerce, Montenegro’s Academy of Sciences and Arts (CANU), the Union of Municipalities, and NGO 
representatives.  

65   The  Council  has  the  following  mandate:  monitor  and  analyze  the  work  of  state  entities,  institutions, 
organisations and bodies in the fight against corruption and organized crime; consider issues and problems in 
the  implementation of laws related to the fight against corruption and organized crime; propose additional 
measures to improve strategies, action plans and other documents related to the fight against corruption and 
organised crime. Parliament of Montenegro (2024), Anti-Corruption Committee. 

66  Articles 423 and 424 of the Montenegro’s Criminal Code. 
67   Article 142(3) point 5a includes a foreign public official into the definition of “public official”. Bribery in 

the private sector is not covered.  

68   OECD  (2018),  Convention  on  Combating  Bribery  of  Foreign  Public  Officials  in  International  Business 

Transactions, Ratification Status as of May 2018. 

69   Embezzlement (Article 420 Criminal Code) and unauthorised use (Article 421 Criminal Code), also in the 
private  sector (Article 421a Criminal Code), trading in influence (Article 422 & 422a Criminal Code) and 
abuse of office and related offences (Article 416-419 Criminal Code).  

10 

 
 
 
Over the last two years, the Special Prosecution Office acted promptly in several high-profile 
cases that appear to point to a deep infiltration of corruption and organised criminality within 
State  structures,  including  at  the  top  level  of  the  judiciary  and  law  enforcement.  The  track 
record  of  investigations  and  prosecutions  in  cases  of  high-level  corruption  is  stable.  By 
contrast, the track record of trials and final decisions is almost non-existent, contributing to a 
perception of impunity, which in turn hampers deterrence70.  

The  human  resources  of  the  Special  Prosecution  Office  (SPO)  are  insufficient  to  cope 
with  its  workload.  As  of  8  March  2024,  the  Chief  Special  Prosecutor,  nine  special 
prosecutors and five state prosecutors seconded to Special State Prosecutor’s Office carry out 
the prosecutorial function within the SPO. The SPO’s human resources are, however, deemed 
insufficient  to  cope  with  a  workload  of  up  to  100  cases  per  special  prosecutor71.  Given  the 
complexity of the investigations to be carried out, the level of specialisation within the SPO 
office  is  also  a  limiting  factor  to  the  overall  efficiency.  The  very  large  spectrum  of 
competence foreseen in Law on the SPO, has been recently reduced through the adoption of 
an  amendment  limiting  the  competence  of  the  SPO  on  acts  of  organised  crime,  corruption 
committed  by  high-ranking  public  officials  and  money  laundering72.  This  revision  should 
allow keeping the SPO’s focus on particularly serious crimes. Refurbishment is planned for 
2024 to accommodate the SPO and the Special Police Unit Department (SPU)73 in the same 
premises. 

The  Agency  for  prevention  of  corruption  has  experienced  a  surge  in  the  number  of 
income and assets declarations and issued a large number of opinions on incompatibility 
of  functions  and  conflict  of  interests.  In  2023,  the  Agency  for  prevention  of  corruption 
(ACA) received the highest number of income and assets declarations compared to previous 
years, reaching 13 141 (11 784 in 2022)74. The increase is due to the heightened turnover rate 
of  officials,  with  declarations  to  be  submitted  both  at  appointment  and  at  termination  of 

70  In 2023, SPO issued orders to conduct investigations into criminal offences of high-level corruption in 11 
cases  against  20  individuals  (2022:  11  cases  against  76  individuals  and  five  legal  entities).  Based  on  the 
government`s data, in the same year, 14 indictments were raised by the SPO in cases of high-level corruption 
against  34  individuals  (2022:  17  indictments  against  81  individuals  and  five  legal  entities).  Financial 
investigations  were  launched  in  eight  cases  of  high-level  corruption,  against  40  individuals  and  one  legal 
entity  (2022:  five  cases,  against  43  individuals  and  four  legal  entities).  2023  Communication  on  EU 
Enlargement  policy,  Montenegro  Report,  p.  38.  The  Government  reported  that  in  2020,  there  were  8  first 
instance  judgments  involving  19  individuals  or  legal  entities,  resulting  in  2  final  convictions.  In  2021,  the 
number of first instance judgments increased to 21, involving 41 individuals or legal entities, and led to 3 
final convictions. In 2022, there were 22 first instance judgments involving 65 individuals or legal entities, 
with 2 final convictions. In 2023, the number of first instance judgments rose to 25, involving 72 individuals 
or  legal  entities,  but  there  was  only  1  final  conviction.  Written  input  by  Montenegro  to  the  2024 
Communication on enlargement policy, Montenegro report. 

71   Information  received  in  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Montenegro  from  the  Chief  Special  Prosecutor’s 

Office. 

72   The  Law  on Amendments  to  the  Law  on  Special  State  Prosecutor's  Office  has  been  adopted  as  of  6  June 

2024. 

73   The Ministry of Justice has formed a new Directorate for planning, design, improvement and construction of 
judicial infrastructure. The Ministry has established a working group to support relocation of both SPO and 
SPU. 

74  Agency for Prevention of Corruption of Montenegro (2023), Summary of the results of ASK’s work in the 

first nine months if 2023.  

11 

 
 
 
office75.  Further  to  its  work  in  verifying  the  accuracy  and  completeness  of  data  in  asset 
declarations,  the  ACA  carried  out  an  additional,  in-depth  verification  of  the  reports  of  20 
high-ranking  public  officials,  chosen  in  accordance  with  the  degree  of  vulnerability  of  the 
area/function. In 2023, ACA initiated 54 administrative proceedings and 1 722 misdemeanour 
proceedings in the area of income and asset reporting (1 057 in 2022). In the same year, ACA 
completed 1 123 misdemeanour proceedings, imposed sanctions in 87.5% of cases and fines 
up to EUR 84 955. In December 2023, ACA introduced a new step-by-step methodology to 
verify income and assets reports and a risk-based approach to initiating ex officio cases, thus 
contributing to the impartiality of its action. In parallel, ACA procured a new interconnected 
digital  information  system.  Both  tools  could  improve  ACA’s  effectiveness  and  capacities 
when  carrying  out  in-depth  verification  of  income  and  assets  declarations.  With  regard  to 
incompatibility  of  functions  and  on  conflict  of  interest,  in  2023, ACA  issued  227  opinions, 
the highest number on an annual basis since its establishment in 2016. Twenty public officials 
resigned  from  positions  or  duties  incompatible  with  public  office  as  a  result  of  ACA’s 
opinions76. The ACA developed a prior-to-appointment integrity checklist to be applied to top 
executive  functions  and  to  the  Agency’s  future  employees77.  By  December  2023,  the 
Government introduced this mandatory integrity check in the employment procedure for top 
executive functions (head and deputy head of Cabinet of the Prime Minister, advisors to the 
President  and Vice  President  of  the  Government),  accordingly  amending  the  Regulation  on 
the Government of Montenegro78. 

While numerous institutions have specific codes of conduct, the Government’s Code of 
Conduct  is  ineffective  pending  the  adoption  of  the  Law  on  Government  with 
disciplinary  penalties. The  Code  of  Ethics  for  Members  of  Parliament,  in  force  since  July 
2019, includes a requirement for ad hoc disclosure in cases of a conflict of interest between 
the  private  interest  of  Members  of  Parliament  and  issues  under  consideration  and  decision-
making process in the parliamentary procedure79. The Government adopted a Code of Ethics 
for  top  executive  officials  in  2018  in  the  form  of  non-binding  guidelines80.  According  to 
GRECO, this code remains ineffective81 as no disciplinary penalties can be imposed until the 
new  Law  on  Government  is  finalised  and  adopted  82.  The  Code  of  Police  Ethics  (2021), 

75   Agency for Prevention of Corruption of Montenegro (2023), Summary of the results of ASK’s work in the 

first nine months if 2023.  

76   In 2022, ACA issued 213 opinions leading to 24 resignations. Following the ACA opinions, three transfers of 
management rights in a company and one termination of a service contract due to a conflict of interest were 
effected, and one termination of employment. 

77  GRECO  (2020),  Fifth  Evaluation  Round  –  Preventing  corruption  and  promoting  integrity  in  central 
governments (tops executive functions) and law enforcement agencies. The ACA has developed an integrity 
checklist which is yet to be applied. 

78   The latest amendments to the Regulation of the Government, Article 16a. 
79   Parliament of Montenegro, Code of Ethics for MPs, August 2019. 
80   Code of ethics for state officials was adopted by the government on 6 July 2018 pending to the Article 74 of 

the Law on state officials amended on 31 March 2021. 

81   GRECO  (2020),  Fifth  Evaluation  Round  –  Preventing  corruption  and  promoting  integrity  in  central 

governments (tops executive functions) and law enforcement agencies.  

82   A  first  draft  of  the  Law  on  Government  was  already  prepared  under  the  previous  government,  and  is 
currently  being  consolidated  and  finalized  under  the  lead  of  the  Ministry  of  Public  Administration.  Two 
articles of the draft Law on Government will set, once the Law adopted, the legal basis for the preparation 
and adoption of the Code of Conduct for top executive functions. The  existing Guidelines, developed with 
the support of the EU-CoE Horizontal Facility, are expected to streamline the process for the drafting of the 
Code of Conduct. 

12 

 
 
 
implementation of which is monitored by the Ethics Committee, has not been complemented 
with further provisions and guidance for its implementation83. The Agency for prevention of 
corruption  (ACA)  also  has  a  Code  of  Ethics  in  place84.  The  Local  Self-Government  Law 
requires  local  civil  servants  and  employees  to  adhere  to  the  Code  of  Ethics  for  local  civil 
servants  and  employees85.  Local  councillors  and  officials  must  also  follow  the  Code  of 
Ethics. Out of 26 municipalities, 17 have adopted these codes. The 2014 Law on Prevention 
of  Corruption  introduced  the  concept  of  integrity  plans,  mandating  their  adoption  by 
municipalities86. ACA’s 2022 report indicates that all municipalities adopted integrity plans. 

The new legislation on lobbying was adopted on 6 June. The Law on lobbying, adopted on 
6 June, will be complemented by nine by-laws, covering specific sectors, already drafted by 
the Working Group at the end of 2022. Registration of lobbyists in the register of lobbyists is 
mandatory  and  it  is  carried  out  on  the  day  of  issuance  of  the  authorisation  to  carry  out 
lobbying activities. In 2023, the lobbying register included thirteen individuals and one legal 
entity87  The  Law  on  Prevention  of  Corruption,  as  recently  amended,  reduces  the  post-
employment restrictions to a one-year period, instead of two years as it was in the previous 
Law88.  

The legal framework regulating political parties’ funding is hampered by shortcomings 
in its scope, clarity and implementation. The Agency for prevention of corruption (ACA) is 
implementing the Law on financing of political entities and election campaigns89. The State 
Election Commission  supervises its overall implementation  together  with  the Parliamentary 
Committee  for  the  political  system,  judiciary,  and  administration.  In  2023,  ACA  checked 
47 485  reports  out  of  the  47 663  reports  submitted  by  political  subjects,  authorities,  and 
media advertising service providers. ACA imposed 10 measures on political entities related to 
suspension/transfer  of  funds,  and  initiated  misdemeanour  proceedings  for  violation  of  the 
Law on financing of political entities and election campaigns in 197 cases, while it completed 
312 proceedings (also  from  previous years). ACA imposed measures on  political  entities in 
almost 90% of cases90. Despite ACA’s track record, the scope – and therefore the impact – of 
these  checks  remain  limited  due  to  the  unclear  or  deficient  provisions  of  the  Law  on 
financing  of  political  entities  and  election  campaigns,  which  exempts  some  categories  of 

83   GRECO pointed out that this should be done with the participation of representatives of the Police. GRECO 
(2020) Fifth Evaluation Round – Preventing corruption and promoting integrity in central governments (tops 
executive functions) and law enforcement agencies, paragraph 5. 

84   Pending to the Article 97 of the Law on prevention of corruption, the Council of the Anti-Corruption Agency 

adopted the Code of ethics for employees of the Anti-Corruption Agency on 22 April 2016. 

85   Article  94  of  the  Law  on  local  self-government  obliges  local  civil  servants  to  adhere  to  codes  of  ethics 

adopted by local self-government units. 

86   Article 77 of the Law on prevention of corruption obliges authorities to submit annual reports on integrity 

plans by 15 April. 

87  Written contribution received from the Agency for prevention of corruption in the framework of the country 

visit to Montenegro. 

88   The Law on Prevention of Corruption, Article 17. 
89   The Agency for prevention of corruption checks the reports submitted by political subjects, authorities and 
media advertising service providers, and can impose measures to suspend the transfer of budget funds for the 
financing of regular work of political subjects, as well as impose a permanent measure blocking the transfer 
of funds. 

90  Agency for Prevention of Corruption of Montenegro (2023), Summary of the results of ASK’s work in the 

first nine months if 2023. 

13 

 
 
 
political  subjects  from  the  scrutiny  of  the ACA91.  To  complete  the  institutional  set  up,  the 
State Audit Institution (SAI) performs the audit of annual consolidated financial statements of 
political  entities  with  parliamentary  status  at  the  national  and  local  level  for  the  previous 
fiscal  year,  over  a  four-year  period.  In  case  the  audit  process  identifies  irregularities,  SAI 
submits  the  file  to  both  the  competent  State  Prosecutor’s  Office  and  the  Parliamentary 
Committee  for  political  system,  judiciary,  and  administration.  However,  even  if  SAI 
expresses  adverse  opinions  on  the  financial  statements  of  political  entities  and  requires 
consultative  hearings,  the  competent  Committee  has  no  obligation  to  act.  The  different 
shortcomings  in  the  existing  legal  framework  on  political  parties  and  election  campaigns’ 
financing  are  identified  in  subsequent  recommendations  of  the  Office  for  Democratic 
Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe 
(OSCE-ODIHR)92.  In particular, the current  legal  framework does  not  provide for effective 
safeguards against and penalties for circumvention of the rules, which limits the effectiveness 
of the oversight93. Also, the Law on election of Councillors and Members of Parliament is not 
aligned with the Law on financing of political entities and election campaigns; as a result, this 
inconsistency prevents a correct and efficient control on electoral campaign financing94.  

Provisions on the protection of whistleblowers in the Law on Prevention of Corruption 
have been amended with the aim to align with the EU acquis. While Montenegro does not 
have  a  specific  law  on  whistleblowing,  the  2021  peer  review  mission  and  the  5th  GRECO 
evaluation  round  widely  recognised  that  it  already  had  strong  provisions  related  to  the 
protection of whistleblowers in  the Law on Prevention of Corruption95. In  March 2024, the 
Ministry  of  Justice  decided  to  maintain  the  whistleblower  protection  in  the  Law  on 

91  For example, the coalitions and group of voters are exempted from the sanctioning mechanism applied by 
ACA as they are not recognised as legal entities in the Misdemeanour Law, which exempts them form the 
scrutiny  of  ACA.  Coalitions  refer  to  political  party  coalitions.  Only  political  parties  (constituents  of  the 
coalition)  are  legal  entities,  that  is  why  the  coalitions  are  exempted  from  the  sanctioning  mechanisms  by 
ACA. Group of voters are individuals who decided to create a joint electoral ticket and to run elections, i.e. 
random  citizens  who  collected  support  signatures  and  who  created  an  independent  list  (but  not  a  new 
political party) that will participate on elections. 

92   OSCE  (2023)  Montenegro  presidential  election  19  March  and  2 April  2023  ODIHR  Election  Observation 
Mission Final Report, as well as previous OSCE/ODHIR recommendations. Among others, some procedural 
issues hamper the effectiveness of the LFPEEC, e.g.: ACA verifies whether registered voters made reported 
donations, and verifies that a donation is not from a person convicted for corruption. However, ACA verifies 
whether donors are directors of public contractors but not owners of or shareholders in public contractors, 
because  the  database  on  public  procurement  of  the  Ministry  of  Finance  contains  only  the  names  of  the 
directors of public contractors.  

93  The Horizontal Facility of the Council of Europe has provided 46 recommendations, out of which 39 for the 
improvement of the Law on political entities and electoral campaigns. In the two latest amendments to the 
Law, the legislator incorporated 11 recommendations, while 5 remained partially implemented and 23 were 
not implemented. Out of 23 not implemented the most important ones concern the need to define all political 
entities as legal entities, including coalitions and groups of voters for the reasons stated above, the need to 
define in-kind donations, as well as the need to align the Law with the Law on Councilors and MPs in terms 
of the duration of the electoral campaign. 

94  The legal inconsistencies exist regarding the duration of the electoral campaign i.e. the Law on election of 
Councilors  and  MPs  prescribes  the  duration  of  the  electoral  campaign  from  60  to  100  days,  however 
according to the Law on Financing of Political Entities and Electoral Campaigns, the campaign lasts from 
the day the elections are called until the day the final election results are announced (once the campaign for 
the  election  of  councilors  in  14  municipalities  lasted  longer  than  nine  months  and  this  imposed  the 
obligations on the state authorities throughout all this period). 

95  Articles 48-64 of the Law on prevention of corruption. 

14 

 
 
 
Prevention  of  Corruption  and  incorporate  stronger  protection  mechanisms96.  Under  the 
current  law,  ACA  has  the  mandate  to  check  public  procurement  procedures  based  on 
whistleblower 
local  self-government  and 
administration units, and public companies, public institutions, and other legal entities whose 
majority  owner  or  founder  is  the  state  or  a  municipality97. The  aforementioned  amendment 
expands the material scope to cover, at least, all areas falling within the material scope of the 
EU whistleblower protection acquis98.  

to  Government  bodies, 

reports 

related 

Montenegro  has  identified  and  implemented  measures  to  reduce  corruption  in 
vulnerable areas. The new 2024-2028 Anticorruption Strategy identifies the following areas 
as  the  most  vulnerable  to  corruption:  the  judiciary,  the  police  and  customs  administration, 
environment,  urban  planning,  public  procurement,  local  self-government,  and  state-owned 
enterprises.  The  strategy  contains  specific  measures  to  address  the  risks  in  those  areas.  In 
addition,  the  ACA  currently  applies  a  methodology  for  assessing  the  application  of  anti-
corruption  measures  to  the  judiciary  and  to  state  authorities  in  the  social  and  child  welfare 
areas.  Reports  on  the  application  of  this  methodology  are  published  or  currently  under 
preparation. In 2023, the Government amended its Rules of Procedure to oblige the conduct 
of assessments of potential corruption risks for legislative initiatives99. 

The ACA  is  mandated  to  check  public  procurement  procedures,  even  though  the  high 
number of small contracting authorities remains a risk. An electronic public procurement 
system (CEJN) is fully operational and connected with the criminal records of the Ministry of 
Justice,  records  on  tax  obligations  and  on  mandatory  social  security  contributions  of  the 
Revenue  and  Customs  Administration  and  records  of  the  Agency  for  the  Prevention  of 
Corruption.  However,  the  high  number  of  small  contracting  authorities  remains  a  risk.  A 
regulatory  and  institutional  framework  is  in  place  on  integrity  and  conflict  of  interest  in 
public procurement. Training sessions on public procurement rules for procurement officers 
are systematically organised by the public procurement authority, and technical  instructions 
and expert guidance on procurement rules are published. Contracting authorities have a legal 
obligation to submit annual reports on violation of anti-corruption rules and, in cases where 
violations  are  established,  formal  notification  is  ensured.  The  ACA  is  mandated  to  check 
public procurement procedures based on whistleblower reports related to government bodies, 
local  self-government  and  administration  units,  public  companies,  public  institutions,  and 
other legal entities whose majority owner or founder is the state or a municipality100.  

96  Articles 65-72 of the Law on prevention of corruption. 
97   In  the  first  nine  months  of  2023, ACA  received  147  whistleblower  reports  (in  comparison  to  127  for  the 
same  period in 2022). Out of this total number, 66 were submitted anonymously, while ACA initiated one 
procedure  ex officio.  During the  same  period, ACA  concluded  one  procedure  initiated  ex  officio  from  the 
previous period, which determined the existence of a threat to the public interest. In the same period, ACA 
forwarded  12  whistleblower  reports  to  the  competent  prosecutor's  offices,  one  resulting  in  rejection. ACA 
forwarded 15 reports to other competent institutions, one resulting in irregularities found. In the same period, 
ACA  submitted  six  requests  to  the  competent  misdemeanour  courts  for  initiation  of  misdemeanour 
proceedings for violation of the provisions of the Law on Prevention of Corruption in this area. Summary of 
results of the ACA work in the first nine months of 2023. Agency for Prevention of Corruption.  

98  European Commission (2024) Interim benchmark assessment Report on Montenegro. 
99   European Commission (2024) Interim benchmark assessment Report on Montenegro. 
100  Ibidem. 

15 

 
 
 
III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM 

The  Montenegrin  legal  framework  on  media  freedom  and  pluralism  is  based  on  the 
Constitution101 and sectoral legislation102 made up of the Law on Electronic Media, the Law 
on  the  National  Public  Broadcaster  (RTCG)  and  the  Media  Law,  the  latter  being  the  basic 
regulatory  framework  for  all  media,  as  amended  in  June  2024.  The  legal  framework 
guarantees the basic right to information and the access to public documents103. The Agency 
for Audiovisual Media Services (AAVMS) – formerly the Agency for Electronic Media – is 
the  independent  regulator  for  audiovisual  media  services104.  Furthermore,  it  shares 
supervision powers with the Ministry of Culture and Media, which is the state administration 
body responsible for media affairs under the Media Law105. In October 2023, the Government 
adopted the 2023-2027 Media Strategy, along with the Action Plan for 2023-2024106. This is 
the first Government strategy in the field of media policy, which seeks to advance freedom of 
expression and promote an environment conducive to free and professional journalism107.  

The  new  Law  on  Audiovisual  Media  Services  grants  new  powers  to  the  Agency  for 
Audiovisual  Media  Services  (AAVMS)  addressing  the  long-standing  challenge  of  its 
effectiveness  to  enforce  the  regulatory  framework  by  granting  it  with  comprehensive 
sanctioning instruments, including the power to impose fines in case of violations of the 
law. The  Montenegrin  legal  framework  on  media  freedom  and  pluralism  has  recently  gone 
through  a  comprehensive  reform  process.  Montenegro  adopted  in  June  2024  a  “media 
legislative package” consisting of amendments to the Law on the National Public Broadcaster 
(RTCG),  a  new  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Law,  and  a  new  Media  Law.  This  “media 
legislative package” aims at improving the core legal framework and at aligning it with the 
EU acquis, including the EU Directive on Audiovisual Media Services. The legal framework 
guarantees the regulatory authority’s operational and financial independence108. The new law 
has broadened the competencies of the AAVMS and improved its status109, providing a basis 
to  address  horizontal  and  vertical  media  concentration,  including  broadcasters  and  cable 
operators110.  

Transparency of media ownership information is limited to registered media providers 
only. According to the Law on Media, all media, including online media, must be registered 

101  Article  49  on  freedom  of  press,  Article  50  on  prohibition  of  censorship  and  Article  51  on  access  to 

information.  

102  Law on the Public Broadcasting Services of Montenegro, (OG 80/202), Law on Media, (OG 80/202), Law 

on Electronic Media (OG 46/10, 40/11, 53/11, 6/13, 55/16, 92/17 and 82/20).  

103  Law on Free Access to Information (OG 44/2012,30/2017). 
104  Law on Audiovisual Media Services, OG 54/2024 of 11.06.2024, Article 139.  
105  Law on Media, OG 80/202, Article 9. 
106  Government of Montenegro (2023), Montenegro adopts first Media strategy for 2023-2027. 
107  Montenegro ranks 40th in the 2024 Reporters without Borders World Press Freedom Index compared to 39th 

in the previous year. 

108  The  Agency  for  Audiovisual  Media  Services  (AAVMS)  –  formerly  the  Agency  for  Electronic  Media  –is 
functionally independent of any state body as well as of all legal and natural persons performing activities of 
production and broadcasting of radio and TV programs or providing other audiovisual media services Law 
on  Electronic  Media,  OG  82/20, Article  42. AAVMS’s  main  source  of  finance  are  the  fees  charged  to  the 
providers of audio-visual media services. 

109  Information received from the Agency for Electronic Media in the context of the country visit. 
110  Ibidem. 

16 

 
 
 
and  disclose  information  in  their  imprint  about  entities  holding  more  than  5%  ownership 
share  in  media  companies,  and  the  public  sector  cannot  advertise  in  media  that  have  not 
published this information. The Ministry of Culture and Media keeps a media register, which 
includes  certain  information  on  each  media111  but  not  on  information  on  ownership112. The 
new Law on Audiovisual Media Services obliges providers of audiovisual services to provide 
ownership  information  to  the  AAVMS113.  The  2024  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  indicates  a 
medium risk (44%) for the transparency of media ownership114.   

Information on all public sector payments made to media outlets, including institutional 
advertising,  is  limited.  The  Montenegrin  media  market  is  very  small,  pluralistic  and 
perceived  to  be  highly  politicised115. Advertising  revenues  are  not  sufficient  to  finance  all 
media116.  The  main  mechanism  of  state  support  to  the  media  is  the  Fund  for  Encouraging 
Media Pluralism and Diversity, established in 2020, to which the state allocates 0.2% of the 
annual  budget117.  Public  sector  bodies  have  to  publish  a  record  of  payments  made  to  the 
media on the basis of advertising and other contracted services on their websites, and media 
founders  are  required  to  keep  records  of  such  payments  through  a  form  published  on  the 
Ministry’s website118. Only 62% of registered media and only 28% of public sector entities 
submitted  data  on  funding  transparency,  up  from  37%  and  9%  respectively  in  2022119. 
Overall, the limited advertising market  affects  the economic sustainability  of media outlets, 
leaving them particularly exposed to political and corporate interests120. Media self-regulation 
is fragmented and generally deemed ineffective by stakeholders121, mostly limited to in-house 
ombudsmen in only a handful of media122. 

The  appointment  of  the  Director-General  of  the  Radio  Television  of  Montenegro 
(RTCG) by the RTCG Council has been challenged in court. RTCG is the national public 

111  Such as name of the media outlet, the name of the founder and the editor-in-chief, the authorisation number 
to  provide  an  audio-visual  media  service,  the  language  in  which  the  media  service  is  provided,  an  e-mail 
address or the business name and registered office. Law on Media, Article 10. 

112  Impact Assessment of the draft law on media, p. 2. 
113  Law on Audiovisual Media Services, OG 54/2024, Article 132. 
114  The indicator is 6 percentage points lower than in 2023. 2024 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 15.  
115  Media Pluralism Monitor, 2024, page 19: The indicator of Editorial autonomy kept the highest risk score of 
97%. In Montenegro, there is no legal protection to ensure freedom from political influence on the election 
of  the  editor-in-chief,  such  influence  is  not  seen  as  conflict,  and  it  depends  primarily  on  media  owners' 
closeness to certain political parties or organizations. 

116  Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Montenegro  from  the  former  Agency  for 
Electronic Media; Media Pluralism Monitor, 2024, page 16: There are only three daily newspapers, and in 
the audiovisual sector, the four biggest companies make 75% of total revenues.  

117  Law on Media, OG 54/2024, Article 26. 
118  Law on Media, OG 80/202, Articles 14 and 16. 
119  Impact  Assessment  of  the  draft  law  on  media,  p.  1;  2024  Media  Pluralism  Monitor,  country  report  for 

Montenegro, p. 21. 

120  This  statement  reflects  the  assessment  from  the  2023  enlargement  report  on  Montenegro,  p.  45.  Some 
external  references:  Sindikat  Medija  (2023),  Montenegro  indicators  on  the  level  of  media  freedom  on 
journalists’  safety  2022;  Media  Ownership  Monitor  Montenegro  2023  (2023),  Montenegrin  Media  needs 
State  help  to  provide  pluralism;  Media  Ownership  Monitor  Montenegro  2023  (2023),  Individual  owners; 
Media Ownership Monitor Montenegro 2023 (2023), Adria TV; Centar za demokratsku Tranziciju (2022), 
Who are  “our” televisions?; SEENPM (2023), Weak mechanisms and outdated code of ethics, media  self-
regulation in Montenegro. 

121  SEENPM (2023), Weak mechanisms and outdated code of ethics, media self-regulation in Montenegro. 
122  2024 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Montenegro, p. 20. 

17 

 
 
 
broadcaster  which  is  state  owned  and  funded  through  a  fixed  allocation  of  1.34%  of  the 
current  national  budget123.  The  public  broadcast  system  accounts  for  more  than  half  of  the 
media  market  and  consists  of  national  PBS  with  four TV  and  two  radio  channels,  six  local 
public  TV  stations  and  15  local  public  radio  broadcasters124.  The  public  broadcaster  has  a 
largely  balanced  editorial  policy,  providing  a  broad  range  of  political  stakeholders  with 
opportunities to present diverse political views125. The RTCG Council is its highest governing 
body,  and  its  members  are  elected  by  the  Parliament.  In  January  2023,  the  Podgorica  basic 
court  invalidated  the  appointment  of  the  RTCG  Director-General,  a  decision  upheld  by  the 
Podgorica High Court in May 2023. However, in June 2023, the RTCG Council reappointed 
the  same  individual,  prompting  strong  public  criticism  and  a  subsequent  criminal 
investigation into potential misconduct. In April 2024, the Podgorica Basic Court overturned, 
once  again,  the  RTCG  Council’s  decision,  a  ruling  that  the  Council  appealed  before  the 
Podgorica  High  Court.  Local  public  broadcasters  are  particularly  exposed  to  the  risk  of 
political and economic pressure, as many local public broadcasters remain directly politically 
influenced and financially controlled by local authorities126. 

While access to information and public documents is legally guaranteed in Montenegro, 
it  has  limitations  in  practice.  Approximately  one  quarter  of  all  requests  for  access  to 
information  are  being  fully  or  partially  rejected127  and  certain  institutions  are  reported  to 
invoke  confidentiality  grounds  to  refuse  requests  for  information  of  public  interest128.  The 
number of appeals filed against refusals to requests for information is rising each year129. The 
Agency for Personal Data Protection and Free Access to Information claims that the existing 
appeal mechanism is being abused to claim compensation and is pushing for legal limitations 
to  the  right  to  free  access  to  information130.  In  December  2023,  the  Government  adopted 
amendments to the Law on Free Access to Information, which are pending in Parliament. The 
2024  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  indicator  on  the  protection  of  the  right  to  information 
increased from medium to high risk (54 to 73%)131. 

The authorities generally provide effective law enforcement and institutional responses 
to  new  cases  of  violence  against  journalists  and  media  workers,  but  there  was  no 
effective judicial follow-up of emblematic past cases. In 2022, the authorities registered 22 
cases  of  violence  against  journalists,  involving  threats,  intimidation,  harassment  and,  in 
several instances, physical violence. In 13 of these cases, the prosecution authorities opened 

123  Law on the National Public Broadcaster RTCG (OG 80/2020 and 125/2023). 
124  2024 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Montenegro, p. 6. 
125  Freedom House (2022), Freedom in the World report 2022 – Montenegro. 
126  Council of Europe and European Union (2017), Montenegro media sector inquiry with recommendations for 
harmonisation  with  the  Council  of  Europe  and  European  Union  standards;  Council  of  Europe  (2023), 
Observations of the early parliamentary elections in Montenegro (11 June 2023). Information received in the 
context of the country visit to Montenegro from NGOs dealing with media.  

127  2024 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Montenegro, p. 13. 
128  Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Montenegro  from  NGOs  dealing  with  media: 

Trade Union of Media of Montenegro; Media Centre; Media Self-Regulation Council. 

129  Agency  for  Protection  of  Personal  Data  and  Free  Access  to  Information,  2023  Communication  on 

enlargement policy, Montenegro report. 

130  The  administration  is  often  unable  to  follow  the  legal  deadline  of  15  days  for  responding  to  submitted 
requests, as they are in the consequential appeal procedure, which results in a high number of administrative 
court cases and related costs. 2024 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Montenegro, p. 13. 

131  Media Pluralism Monitor 2024, p.13. 

18 

 
 
 
criminal  proceedings;  nevertheless,  there  is  concern  that  emblematic  past  cases  have  never 
been effectively  followed up132. From 1 January to  31 May 2023, the police registered five 
cases of violence against journalists, one of which the prosecution authorities classified as a 
criminal  offence  prosecutable  ex  officio133.  Since  2014,  a  commission, 
including 
representatives  of  the  media,  civil  society  organisations,  Government,  law  enforcement  and 
prosecution services has been monitoring the authorities’ responsiveness to cases of violence 
against  journalists134.  The  Council  of  Europe’s  Platform  to  Promote  the  Protection  of 
Journalism and Safety of Journalists135 registers nine active alerts relating to harassment and 
intimidation  of  journalists,  attacks  on  physical  safety  and  integrity  of  journalists  and 
impunity.  Montenegro  replied  to  six  of  these  alerts.  The  Mapping  Media  Freedom  project 
registered three alerts in Montenegro in 2023, all referring to intimidation and threatening136. 
Defamation is no longer a criminal offence in Montenegro since 2011. Since 2021, the legal 
framework  on  the  protection  of  journalists  and  other  media  workers  provides  for  stringent 
penalties in cases of violence against journalists. Journalists are granted the status of persons 
who  perform  duties  of  public  interest,  while  several  criminal  offences,  including  murder, 
infliction  of  serious  bodily  injuries,  coercion  by  using  force  or  threat  and  endangering  of 
safety, carry longer prison sentences when committed against journalists. Montenegro has no 
specific  legislation  in  force  addressing  strategic  lawsuits  against  public  participation 
(SLAPP). There have been no notable cases of SLAPP against media outlets or journalists in 
the last years.  

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Montenegro  operates  as  a  unicameral  parliamentary  democracy,  characterised  by  a  single 
legislative  chamber137.  Any  member  of  the  Parliament  or  the  Government  can  table  draft 
laws138. The Government’s authority is limited by the Constitution and by the laws enacted 
by the Parliament. The Government is headed by the Prime Minister, who is accountable to 
the Parliament. The President, as the Head of State, is elected directly by absolute majority in 
a  popular  vote  for  a  five-year  term139.  The  Constitutional  Court  decides,  among  others,  on 
laws,  regulations  and  general  acts140.  The 
conformity  with 
Ombudsperson’s Office is an independent body responsible for the promotion and protection 

the  Constitution  of 

132  The  murder  of  the  editor  and  newspaper  owner  Dusko  Jovanovic  in  May  2004  and  the  shooting  of 

investigative journalist Olivera Lakić in May 2018.  

133  Input from Montenegro to the EU Annual Report on Montenegro 2023. 
134  Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Montenegro  from  NGOs  dealing  with  media: 

Trade Union of Media of Montenegro; Media Centre; Media Self-Regulation Council. 

135  Council of Europe’s Platform to Promote the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists. 
136  Media Freedom Rapid Response (2024), Monitor. 
137  Constitution, 2007, Articles 1, 11. 
138  Constitution, 2007, Article 93. 
139  The President is eligible for a second term. 
140  Constitution of Montenegro, 2007, Articles 149-150. 

19 

 
 
 
of  human  rights  and  freedoms141,  which  also  has  the  role  of  the  National  Human  Rights 
Institution142 and a multi-mandate equality body143. 

Despite an established framework for inclusive legislative processes, challenges exist in 
terms  of  effectiveness  of  public  consultations.  The  Ministry  of  Justice  is  mandated  to 
conduct  public  consultations  during  the  preparation  of  laws  and  strategies  based  on  a 
procedure  determined  by  a  government  decree144.  Namely,  public  discussions  on  drafting 
laws and public policies involve consulting the public in the initial phase of the preparation 
and organising public debates on draft texts, with representation from NGOs and the judiciary 
in  the  working  groups145.  Although  the  framework  for  an  inclusive  legislative  process  is 
established,  stakeholders  have  reported  persistent  challenges  in  its  implementation146.  This 
includes legislation being passed without sufficient consultation with stakeholders, including 
the judiciary, despite efforts to involve representatives from diverse sectors through dedicated 
working  groups147.  Laws  can  be  passed  under  urgent  procedures 
in  exceptional 
circumstances, particularly for unforeseen circumstances or the need for harmonisation with 
European  legislation,  with  specific  criteria  outlined  in  the  Rules  of  Procedure  of  the 
Parliament  of  Montenegro148.  In  2023  and  the  first  quarter  of  2024,  the  Government 
identified 76 draft laws,  31 of which were proposed for urgent  adoption. The law regulates 

141  The law requires only an absolute majority for the election, deviating from the Venice Principles which set 
out  that  the  Ombudsman  should  preferably  be  elected  by  an  appropriate  qualified  majority.  Venice 
Commission, Principles on the protection and promotion of the Ombudsman institution, CDL-AD(2019)005, 
paragraph 6; CDL-AD(2011)034, paragraph 16 

142  The Ombudsperson Office is formally entitled “the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms (PHRF)”. The 
Office is also the institutional mechanism for protection against all forms of discrimination and the National 
Preventive Mechanism for the protection and prevention of persons deprived of liberty against torture and 
other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Law on the Protector of Human Rights 
and Freedoms of Montenegro (OG 42/2011, 32/2014), Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, (OG 46/2010, 
18/2014) and the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination of Persons with Disabilities OG 35/2015). The latest 
amendments  of  the  Law  on  Gender  Equality  (OG  35/2015)  established  full  competence  of  the 
Ombudsperson’s Office in acting upon complaints against violation of the principle of gender equality. 

143  Article 27 of the Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro, Official Gazette of 
Montenegro No.42/2011, 32/2014; Article 21 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, Official Gazette 
of Montenegro” No.46/2010, 18/2014 and Article 1 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination  of Persons 
with  Disabilities,  Official  Gazette  of  Montenegro”  No.35/2015);  the  Law  on  Gender  Equality,  Official 
Gazette of Montenegro, no.46/2007, 35/2015. 

144  Input from Montenegro to the 2024 Rule of Law Report, p. 83. The decree on the selection of representatives 
of  non-governmental  organisations  to  the  working  bodies  of  state  administration  authorities  and  the 
implementation  of  public  consultations  in  the  preparation  of  laws  and  strategies  (Official  Gazette  of 
Montenegro, no. 41/18) from 2018] does not stipulate the scope of laws or policy areas covered. However, 
the Law on State Administration (Official Gazette of Montenegro, no. 78/18, 70/21 and 52/22) stipulates in 
Article 52 that conducting public consultations is not mandatory when the law or strategy regulates issues 
related to security, defense, or the annual budget. 

145  Input from Montenegro to the 2024 Rule of Law Report, p. 80-83. 
146  Information received in the context of the country visit to Montenegro from the Ombudsperson’s Office and 

civil society organisations in the area of justice. 

147  Information received in the context of the country visit to Montenegro from the Ombudsperson’s Office. 
148  Article  151  of  the  Rules  of  Procedure  of  the  Parliament  of  Montenegro  allows  for  laws  to  be  passed  by 
urgent  procedure,  especially  for  unforeseen  circumstances  or  harmonisation  with  European  legislation. 
Article 152 outlines the procedures for proposing laws under urgent procedures, including the timeframe for 
submission  to  Parliament.  Article  153  specifies  the  parliamentary  process  for  considering  urgent  laws, 
allowing for immediate debate if necessary.  

20 

 
 
 
the Ombudsperson’s ability to make proposals on legislation for alignment with international 
human rights standards149. 

While the Ombudsperson’s Office has improved its capacity to handle complaints and 
its 
improve  the  quality  of  decisions,  the  absence  of  systematic  follow-up  to 
recommendations  undermines  the  efficiency  of  its  work.  The  capacity  to  handle 
complaints by the Ombudsperson’s Office increased150, as did the quality of its decisions151. 
However,  the  lack  of  follow-up  of  the  Ombudsperson’s  decisions  and  recommendations 
across all public institutions has proven challenging for the Office in practice152. Namely, the 
cooperation  of  national  bodies  with  the  Office  remains  limited  despite  an  open  channel  of 
communication  and,  recommendations  of  the  Office  does  not  result  in  any  formal  follow-
up153. The Office is formally invited to working groups tasked with drafting legislation, but 
meaningful  participation  remains  difficult  due  to  lack  of  formal  status  and  resources154.  In 
2023, the Ombudsperson’s Office received a total of 1 107 complaints, addressing issues such 
as the rights of persons deprived of liberty, children’s rights, the right to good governance and 
legal  protection, prohibition  of discrimination,  and labour  rights.  Of these, the Office made 
decisions on 958 cases and issued 455 recommendations to various authorities, with only 127 
(19.3%) being implemented155. The obstacles to implementing these recommendations often 
include  financial  constraints,  lack  of  political  will,  and  administrative  changes  leading  to  a 
lack  of  accountability156.  In  its  role  as  the  national  human  rights  organisation157,  the 
Ombudsperson is presently accredited with B-Status.  

On 1 January 2024, Montenegro had three leading judgments of the European Court of 
Human  Rights  pending  implementation158.  At  that  time,  Montenegro’s  rate  of  leading 
judgments from the past ten years that remained pending was at 14%, and the average time 
that  the  judgments  had  been  pending  implementation  was  4  years  and  10  months159.  The 
moderately high average implementation time of Montenegrin cases results from the fact that 
the country’s three leading judgments had been pending implementation for 2, 5 and 8 years 
respectively.  The  oldest  leading  judgment  pending  implementation  concerns  the  applicant’s 

149  Input  from  Montenegro  to  the  2024  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  83.  Written  contribution  received  from  the 

Ombudsperson's Office in the framework of the country visit to Montenegro. 
150  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Montenegro Report, p. 40.  
151  Ibidem.  
152  Information received in the context of the country visit to Montenegro from the Ombudsperson’s Office.  
153  Information received in the context of the country visit to Montenegro from the Ombudsperson’s Office. 
154  The  Office  reported  not  having  sufficient  resources  to  operate.  Information  received  in  the  context  of  the 

country visit to Montenegro from the Ombudsperson’s Office. 

155  Montenegro Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms (2024), Work report for the year 2023. 
156  Written  contribution  received  from  the  Ombudsperson’s  Office  in  the  framework  of  the  country  visit  to 

Montenegro. 

157  Accreditation by the by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI). 
158  The  adoption of necessary execution measures for a  judgment by the European Court of Human Rights is 
supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It is the Committee’s practice to group 
cases against a State requiring similar execution measures, particularly general measures, and examine them 
jointly. The first case in the group is designated as the leading case as regards the supervision of the general 
measures and repetitive cases within the group can be closed when it is assessed that all possible individual 
measures needed to provide redress to the applicant have been taken. 

159  All figures are calculated by the European Implementation Network and are based on the number of cases 
that  are  considered  pending  at  the  annual  cut-off  date  of  1  January  2024.  See  the  Contribution  from  the 
European Implementation Network on Enlargement Countries for the 2024 Rule of Law Report, p. 1. 

21 

 
 
 
ill-treatment  in  police  detention  and  the  lack  of  an  effective  investigation  into  his 
complaints160. As regards the respect of payment deadlines, on 31 December 2023 there was 
one case in total awaiting confirmation of payments (the same as in 2022)161. On1 July 2024, 
the number of leading judgments pending implementation had increased to five162. 

The implementation of the Strategy for Cooperation of State Administration Bodies and 
Non-Governmental Organisations 2022-2026 has not yet led to improvement in respect 
of  civil  society.  Montenegro  is  considered  to  have  a  narrowed  civil  society  landscape163. 
Financial support to civil society organisations is regulated by the Law of Non-Governmental 
Organisations  and  relevant  by-laws,  establishing  a  combined  model  of  financing.  This 
includes centralised programming by the Ministry of Public Administration and decentralised 
publication  of  public  calls  by  line  Ministries  and  attribution  of  funds  through  annual 
Government decisions164. While the Strategy for Cooperation of State Administration Bodies 
and Non-Governmental Organisations 2022-2026, adopted in July 2022, acknowledges civil 
society as a partner in state public policy-making, its practical application remains inadequate 
both in terms of public funding as well as its involvement in public consultations165. The task 
of  supervising  the  strategy  is  vested  in  the  Council  for  Co-operation  of  State  Bodies  and 
NGOs,  which  is  composed  by  equal  representation  from  state  officials  and  NGO 
representatives166.  Yet,  despite  six  public  calls,  the  Council  is  not  yet  operational167.  A 
Government  report  on  conducting  public  consultations  during  the  legislative  process, 
published  in  December  2022,  revealed  that  a  significant  number  of  laws  were  adopted  in 
2021  without  prior  consultation  with  civil  society168. As  a  major  improvement,  since  May 
2022169,  in  line  with  the  Law  on  State  Administration,  all  ministries  have  integrated  civil 

160  Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 24 November 2015, Sinistaj and Others v. Montenegro, 

1451/10, pending implementation since 2016. 

161  Council  of  Europe  (2024),  Supervision  of  the  execution  of  judgments  decisions  of  the  European  Court  of 

Human Rights – 17th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers – 2023, p. 138.  

162  Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC). 
163  The civic space of Montenegro was ‘narrowed’ in 2023 according to the rating by CIVICUS. Ratings are on 

a five-category scale defined as: open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed and closed. 

164  A  mandatory  minimum  percentage  of  the  state  budget,  with  specific  allocations,  is  designated  for  civil 
society  organisations,  including  co-financing  of  projects  supported  by  EU  funds.  Funds  are  distributed 
through  public  calls,  with  independent  assessors  evaluating  project  proposals  for  national  projects,  and 
criteria set for co-financed projects. However, support from the state budget, donation systems, and taxation 
are not covered by this legislation. Input from Montenegro for the 2024 Rule of Law Report, pp. 76-77. 
165  In  2022,  there  were  fewer  calls  for  NGO  participation  in  working  groups  and  fewer  elected  NGO 
representatives compared to the previous year. Furthermore, ministries often omit to publish the list of NGOs 
that  meet  the  required  conditions,  thereby  hindering  the  transparency  of  the  process.  Government  of 
Montenegro (2023), 2022 Report on the Implementation of the Decree on the Selection of Representatives of 
NGOs  in  Working  Groups  of  State Administration Authorities  and  Implementing  Public  Consultations  in 
Preparing Laws and Strategies; Government of Montenegro (2023), Report on the implementation of public 
tenders and approved projects in accordance with the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations in 2022. 

166  Government of Montenegro (2022), Report from the 13th Government session. 
167  Membership of NGOs has so far not been secured and the Council for Cooperation between the Government 
and  NGOs  has  not  resumed  work.  Government  of  Montenegro  (2022),  Report  from  the  13th  government 
session. 

168  Government  of  Montenegro  (2021),  Report  on  the  application  of  the  Regulation  on  the  election  of 
representatives of non-governmental organisations to the working bodies of state administration bodies and 
the implementation of public hearings in the preparation of laws and strategies for 2021. 

169  Government of Montenegro (2023), Report on the implementation of public tenders and approved projects in 
accordance with the Law  on Non-Governmental Organizations in 2022. Law on State Administration (OG 

22 

 
 
 
 
society organisation representatives into working groups to draft laws and national strategies 
in  their  respective  areas170.  Furthermore,  even  though  the  rules  for  public  funding  of  civil 
society  organisations  oblige  ministries  to  conduct  consultations  with  them  on  their  annual 
funding  priorities,  not  all  ministries  launched  calls  for  proposals  to  finance  civil  society 
organisations’  projects171.  This  demonstrates  the  need  for  coordination,  strategic  planning, 
monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  support  they  provide  to  civil  society  organisations. 
According  to  the  Law  on  local  self-government,  civil  society  organisations  can  also  access 
funds at local level. In 2022, 18 municipalities (out of 23) launched calls for proposals172. 

78/2018,  70/2021,  52/2022),  Article  79:  State  administration  bodies  cooperate  with  non-governmental 
organisations  by  enabling  the  participation  of  non-governmental  organisations  in:  the  procedure  for 
conducting  a  public  discussion  in  the  preparation  of  laws  and  strategies;  the  work  of  working  groups  and 
other working bodies formed by state administration bodies for the purpose of examining issues of common 
interest or for the normative regulation of relevant issues. 

170  Law  on  State  Administration  (OG  78/2018,  70/2021,  52/2022),  Article  79:  State  administration  bodies 
cooperate  with  non-governmental  organisations  by  enabling  the  participation  of  non-governmental 
organisations in: the procedure for conducting a public discussion in the preparation of  laws and strategies; 
the work of working groups and other working bodies formed by state administration bodies for the purpose 
of examining issues of common interest or for the normative  regulation of relevant issues. Government of 
Montenegro (2023), 2022 Report on the Implementation of the Decree on the Selection of Representatives of 
NGOs  in  Working  Groups  of  State Administration Authorities  and  Implementing  Public  Consultations  in 
Preparing Laws and Strategies. 

171  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Montenegro Report, p. 17. 
172  Report on the implementation of public tenders and approved projects in accordance with the Law on Non-
Governmental Organisations in 2022. Government of Montenegro (2023), Report on the implementation of 
public  tenders  and  approved  projects  in  accordance  with  the  Law  on  Non-Governmental  Organisations  in 
2022. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2024 Rule of Law report 
can 
https://commission.europa.eu/publications/2024-rule-law-report-targeted-
stakeholder-consultation_en. 

found 

be 

at 

Agency for Prevention of Corruption of Montenegro, All Documents (antikorupcija.me). 

Agency for Prevention of Corruption of Montenegro (2023), Summary of the results of ASK’s work in 
the  first  nine  months  if  2023  (Rezime  rezultata  rada  ASK  u  prvih  devet  mjeseci  2023.  Godine), 
https://www.antikorupcija.me/media/documents/Rezime_devetomjese%C4%8Dnih_rezultata_rada_A
SK_2023__-_ENG.pdf.  

Agencija  za  elektronske  medije  Crne  Gore,  Emiteri  i  distributeri  – Agencija  za  elektronske  medije 
Crne Gore (aemcg.org). 

Anti-Corruption  Committee  of  Montenegro,  https://www.skupstina.me/en/working-bodies/anti-
corruption-committee.  

CeMI  (2023),  Countering  high-level  corruption  in  Montenegro  –  Study  on  the  special  state 
Prosecutors Office’s performance in high-level corruption cases (2020-2023).  

Centar  za  Demokratsku  Tranziciju  (2022),  Who  are  "our"  televisions?  (Čije  su  “naše”  televizije?), 
https://www.cdtmn.org/2022/01/23/cije-su-nase-televizije/.  

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Freedom  (2024),  Media  Pluralism  Monitor,  Country  report  for 
Montenegro. 

CEPEJ  (2022),  Towards  a  better  evaluation  of  the  results  of  judicial  reform  efforts  in  the  Western 
Balkans “Dashboard Western Balkans”, Par 2 (A) – Beneficiary profile – Montenegro. 

Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Montenegro, https://monitor.civicus.org/country/montenegro/.  

Council  of  Europe  and  European  Union  (2017),  Montenegro  media  sector 
recommendations for harmonisation with the Council of Europe and European Union Standards. 

inquiry  with 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  Recommendation  CM/Rec  (2010)12  of  the 
Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe  on  Judges:  independence,  efficiency  and 
responsibilities.   

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2024), Supervision  of  the  execution  of  judgments  and 
decisions of the European Court of Human Rights – 17th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 
– 2023.  

Council of Europe: Parliamentary Assembly (2023), Observation of the early parliamentary elections 
in Montenegro (11 June 2023).  

Council  of  Europe’s  Platform  to  Promote  the  Protection  of  Journalism  and  Safety  of  Journalists, 
https://fom.coe.int/en/alerte. 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2011), Joint opinion on the law of the Protector of Human 
Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro (CDL-AD(201)034).  

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2019),  Principles  on  the  protection  and  promotion  of  the 
Ombudsman institution (CDL-AD(2019)005). 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2020), Bulgaria  – Urgent interim opinion on the draft new 
Constitution (CDL-AD(2020)035).  

24 

 
 
Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2021),  Montenegro  –  Urgent  opinion  on  the  revised  draft 
amendments to the law on the State Prosecution Service (CDL-AD (2021)008). 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2021), Montenegro  – Opinion on the draft amendments to 
the law on the State Prosecution Service and the draft law on the Prosecutor’s Office for Organised 
Crime and Corruption (CDL-AD (2021)012). 

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2021),  Montenegro  –  Urgent  opinion  on  the  revised  draft 
amendments to the law on the State Prosecution Service (CDL-AD (2021)030). 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2022), Montenegro  – Opinion on the draft amendments to 
the law on the Judicial Council and Judges (CDL-AD(2022)050). 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2023), Montenegro  – Follow-up opinion to the opinion on 
the draft amendments to the law on the Judicial Council and Judges (CDL-AD(2023)011). 

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2023),  Montenegro  –  Law  on  the  Judicial  Council  and 
Judges with revised draft amendments (CDL-REF(2023)016). 

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2024),  Montenegro  –  Urgent  Follow-up  Opinion  on  the 
revised draft amendments to the Law on the Judicial Council and Judges (CDL-PI(2024)007). 

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2024),  Montenegro  –  Urgent  follow-up  opinion  to  the 
opinions on the Law on the special state prosecutor’s office (CDL-PI(2024)011).  

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2024),  Montenegro  –  Urgent  Follow-up  Opinion  to  the 
Opinions on the Law on the State Prosecution Service (CDL-PI(2024)012) 

EPPO  (2022),  Press  Release  22.09.2022,  EPPO  sings  working  arrangement  with  Supreme  State 
Prosecutor’s  Office  of Montenegro,  https://www.eppo.europa.eu/en/media/news/eppo-signs-working-
arrangement-supreme-state-prosecutors-office-montenegro.  

European Commission (2023), Country report Montenegro, SWD(2023) 694 final. 

European Commission (2024), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the 
European Council and the Council on pre-enlargement reforms and policy reviews, COM(2024)146 
final. 

European Commission (2024) Interim benchmark assessment Report on Montenegro.  

European Court of Human Rights (2015), Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights of 24 
November  2015,  Sinistaj  and  others  v.  Montenegro,  1451/10.  SINIŠTAJ  AND  OTHERS  v. 
MONTENEGRO (coe.int).  

Freedom 
world 
https://freedomhouse.org/country/montenegro/freedom-world/2022.  

Freedom 

(2022), 

House 

the 

in 

2022 

–  Montenegro, 

Government  of  Montenegro  (2021),  Report  on  the  application  of  the  Regulation  on  the  election  of 
representatives  of  non-governmental  organizations  to  the  working  bodies  of  state  administration 
bodies  and  the  implementation  of  public  hearings  in  the  preparation  of  laws  and  strategies,  for  the 
year 2021 (Izvještaj o primjeni Uredbe o izboru predstavnika nevladinih organizacija u radna tijela 
organa  državne  uprave  i  sprovođenju  javne  rasprave  u  pripremi  zakona  i  strategija,  za  2021. 
Godinu), https://www.gov.me/dokumenta/6f757c50-4549-4073-91ec-6ca771ef287c. 

Government  of  Montenegro  (2022),  Report  from  the  13th  Government  session  (Saopštenje  sa  13. 
sjednice Vlade Crne Gore), https://www.gov.me/clanak/saopstenje-sa-13-sjednice-vlade-crne-gore-2.  

25 

 
 
Government  of  Montenegro  (2023),  Report  on  the  implementation  of  public  tenders  and  approved 
projects  in  accordance  with  the  Law  on  Non-Governmental  Organizations  in  2022  (Izvještaj  o 
realizaciji javnih konkursa i odobrenih projekata u skladu sa Zakonom o nevladinim organizacijama u 
2022. 
https://wapi.gov.me/download-preview/86ccb03c-e7bb-48dd-b0b1-
c55c6aa9d7df?version=1.0.  

Godini), 

enhance 

Government of Montenegro (2023), Archive, Montenegro adopts first Media Strategy for 2023-2027 
to 
journalism, 
https://www.gov.me/en/article/montenegro-adopts-first-media-strategy-for-2023-2027-to-enhance-the-
environment-for-free-and-professional-journalism.  

environment 

professional 

free 

and 

the 

for 

Government  of  Montenegro  (2023),  2022  Report  on  the  Implementation  of  the  Decree  on  the 
Selection  of  Representatives  of  NGOs  in  Working  Groups  of  State Administration Authorities  and 
Strategies, 
in 
Consultations 
Implementing 
https://www.gov.me/dokumenta/4fcf1033-42cc-47fc-85b9-07238dd8534d. 

Preparing 

Public 

Laws 

and 

Government  of  Montenegro  (2024),  Draft  strategy  for  judicial  reform  2024-2027  (Nacrt  strategije 
reforme pravosuđa 2024-2027). 

GRECO  (2015),  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Corruption  prevention  in  respect  of  members  of 
parliament,  judges  and  prosecutors,  Second  Addendum  to  the  Second  Compliance  Report 
https://rm.coe.int/fourth-evaluation-round-corruption-prevention-in-respect-of-members-
of/1680aec93a.  

GRECO  (2020),  Fifth  Evaluation  Round  –  Preventing  corruption  and  promoting  integrity  in  central 
governments  (top  executive  functions)  and  law  enforcement  agencies,  Second  Compliance  Report, 
https://rm.coe.int/fifth-evaluation-round-second-compliance-report-north-macedonia-/1680acf53f .  

Judicial Court of Montenegro (2023), Annual work report on the Judicial Council and total statement 
in the Court for 2023 (Godišnji izvještaj o radu Sudskog Savjeta I ukupnom stanju u Sudstvu za 2023. 
Godinu). 

Media Freedom Rapid Response (2024), Monitor, https://www.mfrr.eu/monitor/.  

Media  Ownership  Monitor  Montenegro  2023 
gmr.org/en/media/detail/outlet/adria-tv/. 

(2023),  Adria  TV,  http://montenegro.mom-

Media  Ownership  Monitor  Montenegro  2023  (2023),  Individual  owners,  http://montenegro.mom-
gmr.org/en/owner/individual-owners/. 

Media Ownership Monitor Montenegro 2023 (2023), Montenegrin Media needs State help to provide 
pluralism, http://montenegro.mom-gmr.org/en/findings/media-regulation/. 

Mina  News (2024),  Press  release  10.03.2024,  Korać:  I  expect  that  we  will  receive  a  proposal  for  a 
candidate for the president of the Supreme Court (Korać: Očekujem da ćemo dobiti predlog kandidata 
za  predsjednika  Vrhovnog  suda),  https://mina.news/vijesti-iz-crne-gore/drustvo/korac-ocekujem-da-
cemo-dobiti-predlog-kandidata-za-predsjednika-vrhovnog-suda/.  

Montenegro Bar Association (Advokatska Komora), https://www.advokatskakomora.me/index.html. 

Montenegro Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms (2024), Work report for the year 2023.  

OECD  (2018),  Convention  on  Combating  Bribery  of  Foreign  Public  Officials  in  International 
Business  Transactions,  Ratification  Status  as  of  May  2018,  https://www.oecd.org/daf/anti-
bribery/WGBRatificationStatus.pdf. 

OHCHR  (2023),  Press  release  26.09.2023,  Montenegro:  Failure  to  ensure  judicial  independence 
hindering 
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-
releases/2023/09/montenegro-failure-ensure-judicial-independence-hindering-access-justice.  

justice, 

expert, 

access 

says 

UN 

to 

26 

 
 
media 
OSCE 
https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/1/b/403652.pdf.  

(2018), 

Draft 

law 

on 

legal 

opinion 

and 

comments, 

OSCE  (2023),  Montenegro  presidential  election  19  March  and  2  April  2023  ODIHR  Election 
Obeservation Mission Final Report. 

Parliament of Montenegro (2024), Anti-corruption Committee, https://www.skupstina.me/en/working-
bodies/anti-corruption-committee.  

Reporters  without  borders  (2024),  Map  –  2024  world  press  freedom  index,  https://rsf.org/en/map-
2024-world-press-freedom-index.  

SEENPM  (2023),  Weak  mechanisms  and  outdated  code  of  ethics,  media  self  regulation  in 
Montenegro, 
https://www.mminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Ourmedia_MNE-ENG_23-
11-21.pdf. 

Sindikat Medija (2023), Montenegro indicators on the level of media freedom on journalists’ safety 
2022, 
https://sindikatmedija.me/en/publications/montenegro-indicators-on-the-level-of-media-
freedom-and-journalists-safety-2022/. 

TAIEX  (2022),  Case-based  Peer  Review  Mission  on  Countering  organised  crime  and  corruption, 
Peer-Review-Mission-on-Countering-organised-crime-and-corruption_2022 (1).pdf. 

Transparency 
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023.  

International 

(2024), 

Corruption 

perceptions 

Index 

2023, 

27 

 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Montenegro 

The Commission services held hybrid meetings in March 2024 with: 

•  Administrative Court  
•  Agency for Electronic Media 
•  Agency for Prevention of Corruption 
•  Association of judges  
•  Association of Professional Journalists 
•  Association of Prosecutors 
•  CDT, Centre for Democratic Transition 
•  CEDEM 
•  CEMI (Centre for Monitoring and Research) 
•  Centre for Civic Education (CGO) 
•  Civic Alliance 
•  Constitutional Court 
•  High Court of Podgorica 
•  Human Rights Action (HRA) 
• 
•  Judicial Council 
•  MANS  
•  Media Centre 
•  Media Institute 
•  Media Self-Regulation Council 
•  Ministry of Culture and Media 
•  Ministry of European Affairs 
•  Ministry of Interior 
•  Ministry of Justice 
•  Montenegrin Bar Association 
•  Office of Montenegro’s Representative before ECtHR 
•  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for Judiciary and anticorruption 
•  Ombudsperson’s Office 
•  Parliament 

(Secretariat;  Committee  on  Political  System, 

Institut Alternativa 

and 
Administration;  Committee  on  Human  Rights  and  Freedoms;  Anti-corruption 
Committee) 

Judiciary 

•  Police Directorate  
•  Police specialised department for corruption  
•  Police unit for financial investigation 
•  Prosecutorial Council  
•  Special State Prosecutor’s Office 
•  State Audit Institution 
•  State Prosecutor’s Office 
•  Supreme Court  
•  Trade Union of Media of Montenegro 

28