COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2026 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 2026 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2026-07-17
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Montenegro, administrative transparency, corruption, democracy, freedom of the press, human rights, independence of the judiciary, pluralism in the media, rule of law, whistleblowing

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.7.2026  SWD(2026) 929 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2026 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 2026 Rule of Law Report                                     The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2026) 900 final} - {SWD(2026) 901 final} - {SWD(2026) 902 final} - {SWD(2026) 903 final} - {SWD(2026) 904 final} - {SWD(2026) 905 final} - {SWD(2026) 906 final} - {SWD(2026) 907 final} - {SWD(2026) 908 final} - {SWD(2026) 909 final} - {SWD(2026) 910 final} - {SWD(2026) 911 final} - {SWD(2026) 912 final} - {SWD(2026) 913 final} - {SWD(2026) 914 final} - {SWD(2026) 915 final} - {SWD(2026) 916 final} - {SWD(2026) 917 final} - {SWD(2026) 918 final} - {SWD(2026) 919 final} - {SWD(2026) 920 final} - {SWD(2026) 921 final} - {SWD(2026) 922 final} - {SWD(2026) 923 final} - {SWD(2026) 924 final} - {SWD(2026) 925 final} - {SWD(2026) 926 final} - {SWD(2026) 927 final} - {SWD(2026) 928 final} - {SWD(2026) 930 final} - {SWD(2026) 931 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

In  Montenegro,  work  on  the  implementation  of  the  2024-2027  Judicial  Reform  Strategy  is 
ongoing  and  a  new  Action  Plan  was  adopted.  The  constitutional  amendments  aimed  at 
strenghtening the independence of the Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils have been adopted 
by  the  Government.  A  temporary  increase  of  judges’  and  prosecutors’  salaries  has  been 
adopted  for  2025  and  2026  while  a  dedicated  law  on  labour  rights  is  being  prepared.  The 
regulatory framework to promote and enforce ethics and professional standards among judges 
and  prosecutors  was  further  improved  and  continues  to  be  implemented.  The  Judicial  and 
Prosecutorial Councils are effectively implementing the improved rules for the evaluation of 
judges  and  prosecutors,  while  the  quality  of  the    evaluation  of  judges  can  be  further 
improved.  While  the  Councils  have  an  established  reporting  mechanism  for  instances  of 
undue  influence,  criticisms  and  attacks  against  prosecutorial  authorities  and  their  decisions 
have  continued,  thereby  raising  concerns.  While  there  have  been  some  improvements  on 
infrastructure  of  specialised  prosecution  services  and  the  attractiveness  of  the  judicial 
profession,  the  human  resources  situation  and  infrastructure  remains  a  challenge.  Some 
improvements have been achieved on efficiency, while challenges with civil and commercial 
cases remain. 

The implementation of the 2024-2028 strategy for the fight against corruption and its 2026-
2027  action  plan  is  ongoing  in  addition  to  a  quarter  of  previously  planned  activities  that 
remain  to  be  fully  implemented.  The  effectiveness  and  coordination  of  law  enforcement 
institutions in the area of corruption and the number of final rulings and convictions in cases 
of  high-level  corruption  has  increased.  The  human  resources  and  capacities  in  the  fight 
against  corruption  have  increased  but  further  resources  are  needed  for  the  Special  State 
Prosecution Office. A new full-term Director of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption 
was  appointed,  ensuring  the  improved  functioning  of  the  Agency  and  strenghtening  its 
independence,  while  its  administrative  capacities  remain  to  be  improved  further.  The  legal 
framework  regulating  political  parties’  funding  remains  to  be  aligned  with  OSCE/ODIHR 
and GRECO recommendations.  Measures  addressing risk areas in  public procurement have 
been  enhanced  through  the  introduction  of  e-procurement  tools,  while  the  monitoring  of 
measures addressing corruption in high-risk areas is hampered by lack of relevant data.  

With new appointments the Councils of the Agency for Audiovisual Media Services and the 
Radio  Television of Montenegro were restored to full composition.  The appointment of the 
Director-General  of  the  Council  of  the  Radio  Television  of  Montenegro  continues  to  face 
legal  challenges.  Transparency  of  media  ownership  for  audiovisual  media  services  has 
improved but gaps remain for online media alongside increasing concerns about the influence 
of Serbian-owned media outlets. Transparency in the allocation of public funding for media 
has also improved, but the enforcement of obligations remains an issue. New amendments to 
the Law on Free Access to Information were adopted in December 2025, however challenges 
persist  in  its  enforcement.  The  authorities  continue  to  apply  a  zero-tolerance  policy  to 
violence against journalists, while isolated incidents of attacks occur. 

While acknowledging the authorities’ commitment to align national legislation with the EU 
acquis within the established framework for inclusive legislative processes, challenges persist 
in  terms  of legislative planning  and effectiveness of public consultations. Two judges were 
appointed  to  the  Constitutional  Court,  improving  its  functioning  and  efficiency,  while  full 
composition  remains  to  be  achieved.  The  Government  is  finalising  a  new  law  on  the 
Ombudsperson’s Office aiming to fully align with the Paris Principles and ultimately achieve 
‘A’  status  accreditation.  Civil  society  organisations  continue  to  function  within  a  largely 
enabling  environment,  while  stakeholders  report  inadequate  transparency  and  lack  of 
meaningful, inclusive consultation in legislative processes.  

1 

 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM1 

Independence 

The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  in  Montenegro  continues  to  be  very  low 
among  the  general  public  and  is  now  average  among  companies.  Overall,  26%  of  the 
general population and 52% of companies perceive the level of independence of courts and 
judges to be ‘fairly or very good’ in 20262. The perceived judicial independence among the 
general  public  has  remained  the  same  as  in  2025  (26%),  while  among  companies  it  has 
significantly increased in comparison with 2025 (35%). The main reason cited by the general 
public  for  the  perceived  lack  of  independence  of  courts  and  judges  is  the  perception  of 
interference or pressure from the Government and politicians3. 

Work on the implementation of the 2024-2027 Judicial Reform Strategy is ongoing and 
a  new  Action  Plan  was  adopted.  The  implementation  of  the  2024-2027  Justice  Reform 
Strategy  and  its  bi-annual  action  plan  is  ongoing.  According  to  the  Annual  Report  on  the 
implementation of the Strategy for 2025, out of a total of 81 activities planned, 55 (67.90%) 
were fully implemented, 22 (27.16%) partially, and four (4.94%) not implemented under the 
action plan for 2024-2025. In March, the Government adopted a new Action Plan for 2026-
2027. 

The constitutional amendments aimed at strengthening the independence of the Judicial 
and  Prosecutorial  Councils  have  been  adopted  by  the  Government.  On  19  February 
2026,  the  Government  adopted  a  proposal  fully  addressing  previous  European  Commission 
and  Venice  Commission  recommendations,  aligining  both  Councils’  compositions  with 
European  standards.  As  regards  the  Judicial  Council,  the  proposal  addresses  the  need  to 
abolish the Minister of Justice’s existing role as an ex officio member4 and to ensure that at 
least half of the Judicial Council members are judges elected by their peers5. Regarding the 
Prosecutorial Council, the proposal enshrines in the Constitution the existing legal provisions 
on its composition and method of election of its members, reinforcing its independence and 
autonomy  in  line  with  Venice  Commission  recommendations6.  The  next  steps  of  the 
Constitutional  Amendment  process  include  a  vote  in  the  Parliament  on  the  proposal,  the 
drafting  of  the  Constitutional  Amendments  by  the  respective  Committee,  a  public 
consultation process and the final adoption of the Constitutional Amendments with two-thirds 
majority of all members of Parliament. The Conference of Judges appointed on 1 June four 
judge  members  to  the  Judicial  Council  six  weeks  ahead  the  expiration  of  mandates  of 

1   An overview of the institutional framework for all pillars can be found here.   
2   Flash Eurobarometers  581 and 582 (2026). 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%). 

3   Flash Eurobarometers 581 and 582 (2026); Flash Eurobarometers 554 and 555 (2025). 
4   Constitution  of  Montenegro,  Article  128(3).  See  also  Venice  Commission  (2022).  GRECO  (2020),  p.  4, 
recommended 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. 

5   Since ex-officio judge members (President of the Supreme Court) do not count as judges chosen by their 
peers,  currently  4  out  of  10  judges  of  the  Judicial  Council  are  selected  by  their  peers.  According  to  the 
recommendation of the Council of Europe, no 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. 
Committee of Ministers (2010), para. 27. 

6   Venice Commission (2024), para. 23. 

2 

 
 
previous  judge  members.  The  Law  on  Judicial  Council  and  Judges,  the  Law  on  the  State 
Prosecution Service and Law on Special State Prosecution Service, are being revised in order 
to further align them with the recommendations of the Venice Commission and the European 
Commission.  

A  temporary  increase  of  judges’  and  prosecutors’  salaries  has  been  adopted  for  2025 
and  2026  while  a  dedicated  law  on  labour  rights  is  being  prepared.  In  July  2025,  the 
Parliament adopted a temporary increase of the salaries of judges, Presidents of Courts, State 
Prosecutors, heads of State Prosecutor’s Office, as well as the judges and the President of the 
Constitutional  Court  by  30%  effective  from  1  August  until  31  December  2025,  through 
amendments  to  the Law on Judicial Council and Judges, the Law on the State Prosecutor’s 
office  and  the  Law  on  the  Constitutional  Court.  In  March  2026,  the  Parliament  adopted  a 
proposal to extend these provisions until December 2026. The aim is to provide for an interim 
solution, pending the adoption of a dedicated law on labour rights which is currently prepared 
by  the  Minister  of  Justice  covering  the  prosecutorial,  judicial  and  Consitutional  Court 
functions,  including  retirement  criteria.  Stakeholders  stress  that  extending  transitional 
measures should not replace a permanent and systemic solution and they point out that this 
has an impact on the attractiveness of judicial careers7. 

The  regulatory  framework  to  promote  and  enforce  ethics  and  professional  standards 
among judges and prosecutors was further improved and continues to be implemented. 
Revised  judicial  and  prosecutorial  codes  of  ethics  were  adopted  in  October  and  November 
2025,  respectively8.  The  commissions  tasked  with  overseeing  the  application  of  ethical 
standards in the judiciary and the prosecution service continue to be operational and act upon 
complaints  concerning  alleged  breaches  by  judges  and  prosecutors9.  The  implementation  is 
improving as a result of the enhanced regulatory framework. By the end of 2025, the Judicial 
Council  Ethics  Commission  had  resolved  12  cases,  including  two  from  2022  and  10  from 
2025 resulting in sanctions for 3 judges. As for the Prosecutorial Council, by the end of 2025, 
its ethics commission considered a total of 11 cases and its disciplinary commission assessed 
four  cases,  of  which  three  state  prosecutors  have  been  suspended,  and  the  mandate  of  one 
special state prosecutor terminated through dismissal. There is scope to improve the effective 
disciplinary  practice  of  the  Judicial  and  Prosecutorial  Councils  for  failure  to  submit  assets 
and income declaration reports to  the Agency10.  During  the reporting period, there were no 
final court decisions confirming the legality of decisions of the Agency for the Prevention of 
Corruption regarding failures by state prosecutors to declare assets11. 

The  Judicial  and  Prosecutorial  Councils  are  effectively  implementing  the  improved 
rules for the evaluation of judges and prosecutors,  while the quality  of the evaluation 
of  judges  can  be  further  improved.  In  December  2025,  the  Judicial  Council  adopted  the 
evaluation  plan  for  judges  for  202612.  In  May  2026,  the  Judicial  Council  adopted 
amendments  to the  Rules  on  the  Evaluation  of  Judges  and  Court  Presidents,  which 

7   Country  Visit  Montenegro,  Judicial  Council,  Prosecutorial  Council  and  State  Prosecutor’s  Office,  Civil 

Society Organisations, Association of Judges and Association of Prosecutors. 

8   On  1  November  2025,  the  Conference  of  State  Prosecutors  adopted  a  new  Code  of  Ethics  for  State 
Prosecutors,  which  was  developed  in  cooperation  with  the  Council  of  Europe.  Montenegrin  Government 
(2026), written input, p. 11. 

9   At the time of the country visit, the Commission for the implementation of the Code of Ethics for Judges 
was  handling  six  cases,  whereas  the  Commission  for  the  implementation  of  the  Code  of  Ethics  for 
Prosecutors was examining eight cases. Montenegrin Government (2026), written input, p. 12 and Annex 6. 

10   Enlargement Report 2025, p 31. 
11  Montenegrin government (2026a). 
12   Montenegrin government (2026), p. 9. 

3 

 
 
implemented  the  relevant  recommendations  of  the  Venice  Commission  on  the  criteria  to 
assess  the  quality  of  the  work  of  judges13.  The  Judicial  Council  has,  for  the  first  time, 
launched a system for evaluating Supreme Court judges. In April 2026, the Judicial Council 
carried  out  for  the  first  time  the  evaluation  of  Supreme  Court  judges14,  enforcing  the  legal 
amendments  introduced  in  2024,  in  line  with  Venice  Commission  recommendations. 
However,  challenges  remain  in  ensuring  that  evaluations  are  of  high  quality  and  that 
sanctioning  practices  are  consistent  for  reports  from  the  Agency  for  the  Prevention  of 
Corruption.  While  the  process  of  professional  evaluation  of  prosecutors  was  suspended 
throughout  2025,  the  Prosecutorial  Council  established  an  evaluation  commission  in 
November  2025,  following  the  appointment  of  three  new  Council  members.  In  December 
2025,  the  Council  adopted  the  evaluation  plan  for  prosecutors  for  2026  comprising  an 
evaluation of 63 prosecutors15. Overall, the Prosecutorial Council’s evaluation of prosecutors 
has  become  more  nuanced,  slowly  shifting  away  from  the  previous  practice  of  uniformly 
rating all excellent.  

While the Judicial and Prosecutorial Council have an established reporting mechanism 
for instances of undue influence, criticisms and attacks against prosecutorial authorities 
and their decisions have continued, thereby raising concerns. Public criticism by political 
actors  on  ongoing  criminal  investigations  and  decisions  of  judicial  and  prosecutorial 
authorities became more frequent in the reporting period. Such practices raise concerns about 
undue  influence  on  the  prosecution  service.  According  to  European  standards,  all  State 
bodies, of the executive, legislative and judiciary, should apply mutual respect to ensure the 
proper functioning of constitutional institutions and protect the trust of the general public in 
them16. During parliamentary hearings in October 2025, including on the annual report of the 
Prosecution Council and the State Prosecutor's Office, several members of Parliament and its 
leadership  openly  criticised  the  prosecution  service,  including  personal  attacks  on  the 
Supreme  State  Prosecutor.  In  terms  of  safeguards,  both  the  Judicial  and  the  Prosecutorial 
Council have an established reporting mechanism to report instances of undue influence. In 
particular,  the  Prosecutorial  Council  established  a  dedicated  commission  to  consider 
complaints submitted by heads of state prosecutor’s offices and state prosecutors through the 
reporting  mechanism  regarding  the  perceived  endangerment  of  their  independence.  Until 
now,  state  prosecutors  concerned  submitted  five  complaints.  On  29  December  2025,  the 
Prosecutorial  Council  issued  an  opinion  finding  that  four  complaints  are  well-founded.  No 
requests for protection were received by the Judicial Council in 202517 .  

Quality  

Implementation  of  measures  to  enhance  digitalisation  of  justice  is  in  progress,  yet 
approximatly a third of all planned activities of the Judicial Digitalisation Strategy were 
not implemented. The implementation of the Judicial Digitalisation Strategy 2025–2028 and 
its  Action  Plan  2025–2026,  aimed  at  improving  the  judiciary’s  IT  infrastructure  is  ongoing 

13   The amended rules provide that the quality of the work of judges shall be considered “unsatisfactory” where 
at least 35% of their decisions are annulled on appeal, thereby addressing the relevant recommendations of 
the  Venice  Commission.  Venice  Commission  (2022),  para  51;  Venice  Commission  (2023),  para  21.  See 
also Consultative Council of European Judges (2008). 

14   13 Supreme Court judges have been evaluated (out of 15), and all received an “excellent” rating. Only two 

judges who were appointed in February this year were not evaluated. 

15   In 2025, the Judicial Council carried out 20 evaluations of judges, of which 12 judges scored as excellent, 

while 7 as good and 1 as satisfactory. Montenegrin government (2026), p. 7. 

16   Council of Europe: Consultative Council of European Judges (2015), para. 54: “Any analyses and criticisms 

by one power of state of the other powers should be undertaken in a climate of mutual respect”. 

17   Montenegrin Government (2026), written input, p. 5. 

4 

 
 
and  requires  further  acceleration  for  the  implementation  of  the  upgraded  court  information 
system  (PRIS  2),  which  was  foreseen  to  be  ready  by  the  end  of  202518.  The  partially 
implemented  activities  are  expected  to  be  finalised  within  the  second  half  of  2026.  The 
Action Plan for 2026 will be revised as there are not enough funds to implement the activities 
previously  defined19.  The  upgrade  of  PRIS  is  intended  to  allow  for  revising  the  existing 
random case allocation procedure, to further improve the efficiency of case allocation and the 
use of judicial statistics.  

While there have been some improvements on infrastructure of specialised prosecution 
services and the attractiveness of the judicial profession, the human resources situation 
and  infrastructure  remains  a  challenge.  Despite  some  improvements,  the  judicial  system 
still  faces  significant  challenges  regarding  human  resources  and  infrastructure.  This 
particularly concerns the Judicial Council and the Special State Prosecution Office (SSPO). 
At  the  end  of  2025,  Montenegro  had  in  place  274  full-time  judges  out  of  310  planned 
positions (88%). The number of prosecutors at the end of 2025 was 117 out of 145 planned 
positions (80%)20. To improve the attactiveness of the judicial career, the 30% salary increase 
for holders of judicial office, adopted in mid-2025, was extended until the end of 2026. The 
2026  budget  for  the  judicial  system  amounts  to  EUR  34.06  million  (in  2025  EUR  34.2 
million).  The  budget  for  the  State  Prosecution  Service  in  2026  is  EUR  16.3  million,  an 
increase as compared to 2025 (EUR 15.3 million). The implementation of the Rationalisation 
Plan  of  the  judicial  network  2024-2027  continues  to  present  a  challenge,  however, 
improvements  were  made  in  the  adopted  amendments  of  the  Law  on  Courts.  While  the 
Special State Prosecution Service and the Special Police  have moved to new buildings, the 
general  situation  in  the  judiciary  continues  to  be  inadequate  regarding  working  spaces  and 
conditions in the court rooms, including equipment. This is a particular concern for the High 
Court Podgorica and the Supreme Court21. In October 2025, the Government adopted a final 
decision  on  the  location  of  the  Judiciary  Complex,  a  long-term  solution  for  the  judiciary's 
spatial capacity needs. 

The public communication and transparency of the Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils 
continues to improve. The Judicial Council continues the implementation of the 2024–2026 
Communication  Strategy,  while  the  Prosecutorial  Council  adopted  a  new  2026–2028 
Communication Strategy for the prosecution service in January. Both Councils maintain their 
practice of facilitating public access to their sessions by media and civil society organisations. 
They systematically publish their decisions, minutes and press statements. The Prosecutorial 
Council has amended its Rules of Procedure so that all its decisions, including on evaluation 
and disciplinary liability, can be published on its website after anonymisation22.  

Efficiency 

Some  improvements  have  been  achieved  on  efficiency,  while  challenges  with  civil  and 
commercial  cases  remain.  According  to  the  European  Commission  for  the  Efficiency  of 
Justice  (CEPEJ)  data  in  2024,  the  clearance  rate  for  first-instance  administrative  cases 

18   In 2025, out of a total of 28 activities set out in the action plan, 11 activities were implemented (39.28%), 7 
partially (80% are almost completed), while 10 activities were not implemented. Montenegrin Government 
(2026), p. 14. 

19   Country visit, Ministry of Justice. 
20   For  comparison,  at  the  end  2024,  Montenegro  had  243  full-time  judges  in  place  out  of  329  planned 
positions, marking an increase in vacancies compared with the previous year. By contrast,  the number of 
state prosecutors increased from 85 to 114 (out of 141 planned positions). Enlargement Report 2025, p 28. 

21   Country visit Montenegro, Judicial Council, Supreme Court, civil society organisations. 
22   Montenegrin Government (2026), pp. 20, 25. 

5 

 
 
increased to 109%, but it dropped sharply to 48% in second-instance cases. The disposition 
time in 2024 remained very high in both instances, at 879 days and 907 days respectively. For 
criminal cases in 2024 at first instance, the clearance rate was 110% and the disposition time 
slightly  improved  to  249  days;  in  second  instance,  the  clearance  rate  was  103%  and  the 
disposition time 86 days23. Regarding civil and commercial cases in 2024, the clearance rate 
fell  and  the  disposition  time  increased24.  For  2025  a  total  of  93 430  cases  were  resolved, 
representing a clearance rate of 102.33% (92.32% in 2024), of which 14 036 cases were older 
than  3  years25.  In  2025,  the  Constitutional  Court  continued  to  decrease  its  backlog  and 
sustained  the  trend  of  dealing  with  constitutional  complaints  efficiently  by  having  received 
1 115  and  resolved  1 462  cases.  By  January  2026,  the  backlog  of  cases  pending  before  the 
Constitutional Court stood at 1 65626.  

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The  perception  among  experts,  citizens  and  business  executives  is  that  the  level  of 
corruption in the public sector remains high. In the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index by 
Transparency  International,  Montenegro  scores  46/100  and  65th  globally27.  This  perception 
has  been  stable  over  the  past  five  years28.  The  2026  Special  Eurobarometer  on  Corruption 
shows that 81% of respondents consider corruption widespread in their country (EU average 
71%) and 28% of respondents feel personally affected by corruption in their daily lives (EU 
average  30%).  As  regards  businesses,  76%  of  companies  consider  that  corruption  is 
widespread  (EU  average  65%)  and  68%  consider  that  corruption  is  a  problem  when  doing 
business  (EU  average  37%).  Furthermore,  25%  of  respondents  find  that  there  are  enough 
successful prosecutions to deter people from corrupt practices (EU average 38%), while 36% 
of  companies  believe  that  people  and  businesses  caught  for  bribing  a  senior  official  are 
appropriately punished (EU average 31%)29. 

The  implementation  of  the  2024-2028  strategy  for  the  fight  against  corruption  and  its 
2026-2027  action  plan  is  ongoing  in  addition  to  a  quarter  of  previously  planned 
activities that remain to be fully implemented. The National Council for the Fight Against 
Corruption  continued  monitoring  and  reporting  on  the  implementation  of  the  strategy  and 
action  plan.  The  Council  is  supported  by  an  Operational  Team,  which  brings  together  12 
members from different institutions and a coordinator30. In March 2026, the National Council 
adopted  both  the  new  Action  Plan  for  2026-2027  and  the  Monitoring  Report  on  the 
implementation of the Action Plan 2024-2025. In March 2026, 65% of the planned measures 

23   CEPEJ (2025), Dashboard Western Balkans. 
24   In first instance courts, the clearance rate for civil and commercial litigious cases was 77% in 2024 and the 
disposition  time  598  days  in  2024,  in  second  instance  courts,  clearance  rate  was  84%  in  2024,  and 
disposition time 276 days. 

25   Montenegrin Government (2026), written input, p. 34. 
26   At  the  begininng  of  2026,  3  cases  from  2023  remained  pending,  705  cases  from  2024,  and  948  cases 

received in 2025. Montenegrin Government (2026), written input, p. 35. 

27   The level of perceived corruption is categorized as follows: low (above 79); relatively low (between 79-60), 

relatively high (between 59-50), high (below 50). 

28   In 2021 the score was 46, while, in 2025, the score is 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. 

29   Data from Special Eurobarometer 573 (2026) and Flash Eurobarometer 582 (2026). 
30   The members of the Operational Team are representatives from General Secretariat of the Government, the 
Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health, the 
Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Public Administration, the Police Directorate, the Supreme Court, the 
Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office, the Customs Administration, and the Tax Administration. 

6 

 
 
were  implemented,  13%  partially  implemented  and  13%  not  implemented31.  Challenges 
remain  regarding  the  transparency  of  the  sessions  of  the  National  Council  and  operational 
follow-up  of  its  decisions.  The  Agency  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  (ACA)  and  the 
National  Council  for  the  Fight  Against  Corruption  signed,  in  September  2025,  a 
Memorandum  of  Cooperation  to  further  define  principles,  objectives  and  mechanisms  of 
cooperation and to regulate respective roles in the fight against corruption32. On 30 January 
2026,  the  National  Council  adopted  an  Annex  to  the  Strategy  prepared  by  the  National 
Council for the Fights Against Corruption, ACA and Secretariat General of the Government, 
proposing  to  formally  recognise  persons  holding  the  highest  executive  functions  as  a  high-
risk area for corruption, based on prior risk assessments and GRECO recommendations33.  

The  effectiveness  and  coordination  of  law  enforcement  institutions  in  the  area  of 
corruption improved, and the number of final rulings and convictions in cases of high-
level corruption has increased. The concerted efforts by law enforcement, prosecution and 
judicial  authorities  to  address  systemic  challenges  in  the  fight  against  high-level  corruption 
continue to deliver positive results. The Special State Prosecutor’s Office (SSPO) continues 
to  focus  on  to  the most  complex and high-profile cases  of high-level  corruption,  delivering 
good results34. In 2025, it launched 8 high-level corruption investigations in 2025, compared 
to  the  17  investigations  launched  in  2024.  In  2025,  five  indictments  were  filed  against  13 
persons  for  the  criminal  offence  of  high-level  corruption,  while  in  2024  the  SSPO  filed 
indictment against 16 people35. In 2025,  99% of indictments were confirmed by the relevant 
Courts36. The number of final convictions registered an increase from 6 to 25 in 2025, and the 
number of final court rulings increased from 57 to 80. In October 2024, the Supreme Court 
has  adopted  guidelines  for  the  management  of  cases  of  serious  and  organised  crime  which 
include  recommendations  to  address  the  practice  of  defence  attorneys  unduly  invoking 
procedural rules to delay hearings in criminal cases. However, stakeholders reported that the 
guidelines did not yet contribute to reduce such abuses in practice37. 

The human resources and capacities in the fight against corruption have increased but 
further  resources  are  needed  for  the  Special  State  Prosecution  Office.  The  number  of 
judges  at  the  High  Court  in  Podgorica  has  been  reinforced  with  17  judges  assigned  to  the 
Special  Department,  including  investigative  judges  (11  judges  in  2024)38.  A  call  for 
applications is foreseen to be announced for ten more judicial advisor positions at that court . 
In  September  2025,  the  Prosecutorial  Council  increased  the  number  of  Special  State 
Prosecutors in the Special State Prosecution Office (SSPO) from 16 to 20 planned positions. 
At the beginning of 2026, the SSPO had nine prosecutors and six seconded prosecutors39. At 
the  end  of  2025,  the  Special  State  Prosecutor’s  Office  recruited  two  economic  experts  to 
strengthen  its  economic  expertise  in  the  fight  against  high-level  corruption40.  The  human 

31   The working group of the National Council for the period until 31 March 2026 for the 2024-2025 activities 

indicated that 9% of the activities have no status. 

32   As recommended by GRECO (2024), p. 8. 
33   Fifth Evaluation Round. 
34   The  SSPO  placed  a  particular  emphasis  on  the  initiation  of  criminal  proceedings  against  several  high-
ranking officials formerly holding important positions in state authorities of Montenegro. This included two 
former  ministers,  a  deputy  minister,  former  assistant  director  of  police  administration,  former  head  of 
Department for the Suppression of Serious Criminal Offences etc. Montenegrin Government (2026), p. 57. 

35   Montenegrin Government (2026), p. 56. 
36  Montenegrin government (2026a). 
37   Country Visit Montenegro, Bar Association, SPO. 
38   European Commission (2025), 2025 Rule of Law Report, Montenegro, p. 8. 
39   Montenegrin Government (2026), p.27, 49. 
40   Montenegrin Government (2026), written input, pp. 28, 48. 

7 

 
 
resources available to the Special Police Unit (SPU) under the SSPO, while not yet sufficient, 
have increased , with 52 of the 80  positions filled41. However, a recruitment process for new 
police  officers  is  ongoing,  particularly  to  deal  with  high-level  corruption  and  money 
laundering.  Furthermore,  the  SPU  lacks  specialised  initial  and  continuous  trainings  in 
financial  investigations,  with  no  regular  courses  on  this  topic  in  the  police  academy’s 
curriculum. The equipment and technological tools would need further enhancement, limiting 
their efficiency overall42. 

A new full-term Director of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption was appointed, 
ensuring  the  improved  functioning  of  the  Agency  and  strengthening  its  independence, 
while  its  administrative  capacities  remain  to  be  improved  further.  In  April  2026,  the 
Council  of  the  Agency  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  (ACA)  appointed  a  new  full-term 
Director. This important development ensures the functionality of the Agency. The position 
had  been  vacant  since  April  2024  and  this  prolonged  leadership  gap  has  undermined  the 
Agency’s  legitimacy  and  strategic  direction  in  the  past  years.  Additionally,  persistent 
structural weaknesses hinder its effectiveness. As of December 2025, the ACA operated with 
62  of  98  positions  (63%),  as  foreseen  in  the  Rulebook  adopted  in  October  202443.  The 
financial  independence  of  ACA  is  still  not  ensured,  further  limiting  its  effectiveness44.  In 
accordance with the 2025 Annual Verification Plan, 488 income and assets reports have been 
reviewed  so  far,  of  which  323  were  found  to contain violations  of  the  law. The  Agency 
has initiated in-depth  verification  for  all  34  planned public officials  and  has  completed  12 
verifications so far45. Efforts are underway to integrate ACA’s IT systems with those of the 
State Prosecution and Police, aiming to streamline data exchange, including asset declaration 
controls,  public procurement records,  and beneficial ownership data46.  In  2025, the Agency 
implemented a number of activities to raise awareness about the harmful effects of corruption 
and  aimed  at  preventing  conflict  of  interest,  including  on  restrictions  in  the  excersice  of 
public functions. The ACA also regularly organises exams for conducting lobbying activity 
for  lobbyists.  A  total  of  21  lobbyists  and  2  legal  entities  are  registered  in  the  Register  of 
lobbyists. In January 2026 all lobbyists and legal entities submitted a written activity report 
for 2025 to the ACA47. 

The  legal  framework  regulating  political  parties’  funding  remains  to  be  aligned  with 
OSCE/ODIHR and GRECO recommendations to increase transparency and control of 
political parties’ spending. In July 2025, the Parliament adopted amendments to the Law on 
Financing  of  Political  Entities  and  Election  Campaigns  and  amendments  to  the  Law  on 
Election  of  Councillors  and  Members  of  Parliament.  The  legal  framework  remains  to  be 
aligned 
inclusive  consultation  process  with  existing 
increase 
the  OSCE/ODIHR  and  GRECO, 
recommendations  from 
transparency  and  control  of  political  parties'  spending,  and  to  prevent  the  abuse  of  state 
resources,  including  through  dissuasive  penalties.  In  particular,  the  Law  on  election  of 
Councillors  and  Members  of  Parliament  is  yet  to  be  aligned  with  the  Law  on  Financing  of 

transparent  and 

to  substantially 

through  a 

41  Montenegrin government (2026a). 
42   Country visit Montenegro, Special Police Unit. 
43   Including  only  six  employees  in  the  Department  for  Control  of  Public  Officials’  Reports  and  four  in  the 

Conflict-of-Interest Prevention Department. Montenegrin Government (2026), p. 65. 

44   The 2026 budget (€2.19 million) falls short of the legal minimum (0.13% vs. the required 0.2% of the state 

budget), risking performance and recruitment plans. 

45   Montenegrin Government (2026), p. 68. 
46   A key prerequisite, the connection of the ACA’s optical cable to the Ministry of Interior’s infrastructure, is 
pending completion of a procurement procedure (expected by end-Q1 2026), with a test version of the full 
system due by end-Q2 2026. 

47   Country visit Montenegro. 

8 

 
 
Political  Entities and Election Campaigns, further preventing a correct  and efficient  control 
on  electoral  campaign  financing48.  In  2025,  the  Agency  for  the  prevention  of  corruption 
monitored  electoral  campaigns  for  two  municipalities,  however  the  legal  framework  on 
ACA’s supervision remains to be further clarified. Follow-up to the State Audit Institution’s 
(SAI)  findings  by  other  competent  bodies,  including  the  National  Council  for  the  Fight 
against Corruption, continues to remain weak. 

to 

The  implementation  of  the  legal  framework  on  the  protection  of  whistleblowers  is 
legal  framework  for  protecting 
implement 
ongoing.  Montenegro  continues 
whistleblowers and the adoption of a dedicated law implementing the EU acquis is foreseen 
in  mid  2026.  In  2025,  the  Agency  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  (ACA)  received  180 
reports  concerning  threats  to  the  public  interest  indicating  possible  corruption,  156 
whistleblowers’ reports (163 in  2024) and forwarded  14   reports to  the prosecutors’ offices 
and  40  to  other  competent  institutions49.  The  ACA  concluded  82  procedures  (116  in  2024) 
and identified threats to the public interest in 18 cases (25 in 2024)50. 

its 

Measures addressing risk areas in public procurement have been enhanced through the 
introduction  of  e-procurement  tools,  while  the  monitoring  of  measures  addressing 
corruption in high-risk areas is hampered by lack of relevant data. A red flag mechanism 
has  been  integrated  into  the  e-procurement  system  to  help  detect  potential  irregularities  in 
public  procurement  procedures.  To  build  on  these  measures,  the  Parliament  adopted 
amendments to the Public Procurement Law. The amendments aim to strengthen prevention, 
control  and  sanctions  in  procurement  procedures,  clarify  liability  before  the  Court  of 
Misdemeanours, and further embed the red flag mechanism in the e-procurement system. The 
implementation of actions aimed at addressing high risk areas51 in the 2024-2028 Strategy for 
the fight against corruption faces challenges regarding the collecting of relevant data52, which 
undermines effective monitoring.  

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM  

With new appointments, the Councils of the Agency for Audiovisual Media Services and 
of  the  Radio  Television  of  Montenegro  were  restored  to  full  composition,  while  the 
appointment  of  the  Director-General  of  the  Council  of  the  Radio  Television  of 
Montenegro continues to face legal challenges. A year after its initial call53, the Parliament 
appointed  three  members  to  the  Council  of  the  Agency  for  Audiovisual  Media  Services 
(AMU)  in  December  2025,  and  a  new  chairperson  was  elected  in  February  2026.  In  July 
2025, three members were appointed to the Council of the Radio Television of Montenegro 
(RTCG)54. After a considerable delay, in November 2025 and in March 2026, the Parliament 

48   The Parliament has initiated the drafting of a new Law aimed at overcoming the existing shortcomings in 

the legal framework. 

49  Montenegrin government (2026a). 
50   Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (2025), p. 5. 
51   The high-risk areas identified in 2024–2028 Strategy for the fight against corruption are: (1) the work of the 
prosecution  and  courts,  (2)  the  work  of  the  police  and  the  Customs  Administration,  (3)  environment, 
urbanism and spatial planning, (4) public procurement, (5) local self-government, and (6) the operation of 
state-owned enterprises and companies owned by local self-governments. 

52   Out  of  21  activities,  7  were  completed  and  5  partially  completed;  6  were  not  implemented,  while  no 
information was submitted for 3 activities. 2025 Monitoring report on the Anticorruption strategy, pp. 13-
15. 

53   Country Visit Montenegro, media organisations. 
54   European  Commission  (2025),  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  Montenegro  2025  Report 
accompanying  the  document  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the 

9 

 
 
has launched the appointment procedures for two AMU Council members and four members 
of  the  RTCG  Council,  whose  terms  expire  in  June  2026.  Stakeholders  welcome  the 
appointments  of  new  members  to  both  Councils  but  raise  concerns  that  the  delays  in  these 
appointments  point  to  political  interference  in  these  bodies55.  The  AMU  reported  that  the 
delay in the appointments negatively impacted public perception of the Council and put the 
council  members  under  additional  pressure56.  Criminal  proceedings  are  still  ongoing 
regarding  the  indictment  against  members  of  the  RTCG  Council  on  grounds  of  abuse  of 
office during the appointment of the RTCG Director-General in November 2024. In February 
2025, the Basic Court of Podgorica annulled for the third time the RTCG Council’s decision 
to appoint the same person as Director-General57. The decision was appealed by the Director-
General  and  is  not  yet  subject  to  a  final  ruling.  In  view  of  these  factors,  the  2026  Media 
Pluralism Monitor ranks the independence of the public service media as medium-high risk58.  

Transparency  of  media  ownership  for  audiovisual  media  services  has  improved,  but 
gaps  remain  for  online  media  alongside  increasing  concerns  about  the  influence  of 
media  outlets  owned  by  companies  established  in  Serbia.  In  November  2025,  the  AMU 
launched a public digital platform59 where linear and on-demand audiovisual media services, 
radio  services,  cable  distributors,  and  video-sharing  platforms  are  required  to  publish  their 
ownership  information60.  Although  currently  limited  to  these  categories  of  media  services, 
the platform significantly enhances the availability of ownership information and contributes 
to  greater  transparency  in  a  sector  that  is  crucial  for  media  pluralism  and  freedom  of 
expression61.  Gaps  remain  as  there  is  no  publicly  available  ownership  database  for  non-
audiovisual media, and concerns persist at the lack of ownership transparency of unregistered 
online  media,  in  particular  news  portals62.  In  response,  the  AMU  has  announced  plans  to 
expand  its  register  and  digital  platforms  to  include  news  portals  and  social  media  profiles 
which meet certain criteria63. Concerns regarding the strong and influential presence of media 
outlets  owned  by  companies  established  in  Serbia  have  increased.  Liberal  rules  on  market 
entrance  to  foreign  ownership  have  resulted  in  three  out  of  four  national  private  television 
channels  being  majority-owned  by  foreign  capital64.  Online  oversight  and  enforcement  of 
rules  applicable  to  content  remain  challenging,  and  stakeholders  noted  the  prevalence  of 
illegal content such as hate speech, as well as discriminatory and anti-rights narratives, in the 
content of these channels65. 

Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  Of  The  Regions  2025 
Communication on EU enlargement policy, EUR-Lex - 52025SC0754 - EN - EUR-Lex , pp. 7-8. 

55   Country Visit Montenegro, media organisations. 
56   Country visit Montenegro, AMU. 
57   Since  2021,  there  were  8  rulings  issued  by  the  Basic  Court,  4  by  the  High  Court  and  1  by  the  Supreme 

Court. 

58   Monitoring Media Pluralism in the European Union, results of the MPM2026, Country report: Montenegro, 

pp. 31-32. 

59   AMU (2025). The platform can be accessed here: Home | TransparentnostMedija. 
60   Montenegrin Government (2026), written input, p. 110. The legal basis for the register is the new national 

Law on Audiovisual and Media Services of 2024. 

61   TBU number of viewers of the digital platform. 
62   Country  visit  Montenegro,  AMU;  DPNCG  (2026),  written  input,  pp.  1-2;  2025  Rule  of  Law  Report, 

Montenegro, pp. 11-12. 

63   News portals which are partially structured as video on-demand services and social media profiles which 
have more than 100k subscribers and publish monetized videos with the intention to entertain, inform, or 
educate the general public. Country visit Montenegro, AMU. 

64   Monitoring Media Pluralism in the European Union, results of the MPM2026, Country report: Montenegro, 

p 21. 

65   Country visit Montenegro, AMU; Country Visit Montenegro, media organisations. 

10 

 
 
Transparency  in  the  allocation  of  public  funding  for  media  has  improved,  but  the 
enforcement of obligations remains an issue. According to the AMU, there is a high level 
of  transparency  in  allocations  from  the  Media  Pluralism  and  Diversity  Fund66,  which 
represents a significant share of total public funding for Montenegrin media67. Transparency 
has also improved for other forms of public funding, but inconsistencies remain between data 
published  by  media  outlets  on  their  revenues  and  data  published  by  public  authorities  on 
expenditures68.  Stakeholders  report  that  there  are  alleged  cases  where  public  funding  was 
allocated to unregistered media69, despite only registered media being eligible. Stakeholders 
argue that there is a need for more effective enforcement of transparency obligations70, and 
the Ministry of Culture and Media plans to increase its capacity to monitor and sanction non-
compliance71. Stakeholders also note that reliance of private media on public funding as their 
main  source  of  revenue  can  undermine  editorial  independence72,  and  some  raise  concerns 
regarding allegations of unofficial funding of private media by state actors73. The Council for 
Media Self-Regulation had increased to 77 members by February 202674. 

New amendments to the Law on Free Access to Information were adopted in December 
2025, however challenges persist in its enforcement. The new amendments to the Law on 
Free  Access  to  Information  introduce  a  mechanism  for  inspections  to  monitor  compliance 
with  proactive  publication  obligations,  as  well  as  align  national  law  with  the  Open  Data 
Directive75.  However,  stakeholders  have  criticised  the  amendments  for  introducing  a  split-
cost  scheme  which  imposes  court  costs  on  citizens  and  organisations  even  where  the  court 
finds the denial of access to information unlawful76. Meanwhile, stakeholders raise concerns 
about  frequent  denials  of  access  to  information,  silence  of  institutions,  insufficient 
enforcement of state institutions’ compliance, and a lack of effectiveness and independence 
of  the  Agency  for  Personal  Data  Protection  and  Free  Access  to  Information  (DPA)77.  The 
DPA reports that its financial, human and IT resources remain insufficient, also in view of its 
new  tasks  under  the  amended  law,  and  it  currently  awaits  the  approval  of  the  Ministry  of 
Finance  to  recruit  additional  staff78.  Montenegro  has  ratified  the  Council  of  Europe 
Convention on Access to Official Documents79. 

The  authorities  continue  efforts  to  apply  zero-tolerance  policy  to  violence  against 
journalists, while isolated incidents of attacks occur. Since July 2025, a total of 25 cases 

66   The  Fund  for  Fostering  Media  Pluralism  and  Diversity  was  established  by  the  Media  Law  to  encourage 

pluralism and diversity of the media and the production and publication of content of public interest. 

67   Direct  support  to  media  is  provided  through  the  Fund  for  Encouraging  Media  Pluralism  and  Diversity, 
financed  at  a  minimum  level  of  0.2%  of  the  state  budget  (Law  on  Media,  54/24).  Monitoring  Media 
Pluralism in the European Union, results of the MPM2026, Country report: Montenegro, p. 30. 

68   Country visit Montenegro, AMU, civil society organisations. 
69   Country Visit Montenegro, civil society organisations. 
70   Country Visit Montenegro, civil society organisations. 
71   Country visit Montenegro, AMU. 
72   Country Visit Montenegro, civil society organisations. 
73   DPNCG (2026), written input, p. 2. 
74   Country Visit Montenegro, civil society organisations. 
75   The  amended  Law  on  Free  Access  to  Information  entered  into  force  on  7.1.2026,  and  applies  after  the 
expiration  of  six  months  from  the  date  of  entry  into  force.  The  2025  Rule  of  Law  Report  noted  that  the 
initial  draft  proposal  did  not  sufficiently  address  the  conduction  of  inspections  and  the  need  for 
harmonisation with the Open Data Directive. 

76   Country Visit Montenegro, DPA, civil society organisations. 
77   Country Visit Montenegro, civil society organisations. 
78   Country Visit Montenegro, Agency for Personal Data Protection and Free Access to Information. 
79   The Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents (CETS No. 205), also known as the 

Tromsø Convention, entered into force on 1 December 2020. 

11 

 
 
concerning  threats  and  acts  of  violence  against  journalists  or  their  property  were  opened  at 
the  State  Prosecutor’s  Office,  18  of  which  have  been  resolved80.  The  Supreme  State 
Prosecutor’s Office notes that prioritised proceedings have led to higher levels of prosecution 
and  more  effective  protection  of  journalists’  rights  as  victims81.  In  the  same  period,  the 
Council of Europe Safety of Journalists Platform recorded three new alerts, one for an attack 
on  physical  safety  and  integrity,  and  two  for  harassment  and  intimidation  of  journalists82. 
Moreover, cases  of verbal  attacks  on the media by public officials  and political  parties  still 
occur.  The  Media  Freedom  Rapid  Response  platform  recorded  fifteen  alerts,  consisting  of 
one ‘physical assault’, one ‘sexual harassment  case’, eleven ‘verbal  and online attacks’ and 
two  ‘blocked  access  to  an  event’83.  In  December  2025,  the  Government  set  up  an 
Intergovernmental  Working  Group  to  implement  the  Mechanism  for  the  Safety  of 
Journalists 84, which was established by the Protocol on the Protection of Journalists signed in 
October 202585. A prominent trial for the attempted murder of a journalist in 2019 continues 
to be prolonged86, and stakeholders raise concerns about the failure to advance the case and 
the  risk  that  the  statute  of  limitations  will  apply  before  a  judgement  is  delivered87. 
Montenegro  does  not  yet  have  dedicated  legislation  against  lawsuits  against  public 
participation  (SLAPPs),  which  leaves  journalists  vulnerable  to  legal  intimidation  and 
pressure88.  While  the  lack  of  a  clear  definition  of  a  SLAPP  in  the  legal  framework 
complicates  the  identification  of  cases,  several  lawsuits  in  2025  were  characterised  as 
SLAPPs by defendants.  

IV. 

OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

the  Government’s 

While acknowledging the authorities’ commitment to align national legislation with the 
EU  acquis  within  the  established  framework  for  inclusive  legislative  processes, 
challenges  persist  in  legislative  planning  and  effectiveness  of  public  consultations.  A 
framework  for  an  inclusive  legislative  process  through  public  consultations  is  in  place. 
Nevertheless, 
its 
implementation continues to negatively affect stakeholders. In 2025, the majority of the laws 
adopted  were  based  on  a  Government’s  proposal,  most  of  which  had  undergone  a  public 
consultation89. In this context, the quality of legal drafts proposed by Members of Parliament 
remains  uneven,  as  they  are  not  systematically  subject  to  regulatory  impact  analysis, 
structured  public  consultations  or  effective  quality  control.  This  continues  to  affect  the 
overall  coherence  and  predictability  of  the  legislative  framework.  With  regard  to  fast-track 

legislative  planning  presents  shortcomings  and 

80   In 

4 

filed, 
initiate misdemeanor proceedings. Montenegrin Government (2026), written input, p. 112. 

indictments  were 

cases 

cases 

and 

in 

6 

requests  were submitted to 

81   Montenegrin Government (2026), written input, p. 112. 
82   The  state  has  replied  to  one  alert.  Council  of  Europe  (2026),  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of 

journalism and safety of journalists. 

83    European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (2026). 
84   The  Mechanism  for  the  Safety  of  Journalists  includes  a  24-hour  hotline  for  reporting  incidents,  direct 
contact points within the police and prosecution, and legal and psychological assistance to journalists who 
have been attacked. Council of Europe (2025a). 

85   Montenegrin Government (2026), written input, pp. 114-115. 
86   Ministry of Culture and Media (2026). 
87   Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (2025). 
88   Monitoring Media Pluralism in the European Union, results of the MPM2026, Country report: Montenegro, 

p.13. 

89   In 2025,  the Parliament adopted 200 laws, of which the  Government had proposed 113. Of these, 80 had 
undergone a documented form of public consultation. However, of these 80 laws, only 33 had a  regulatory 
impact assessment published at the time the public consultation was announced. 

12 

 
 
procedures, in 2025, the Parliament adopted 201 laws, 115 of which were recommended for 
urgent adoption, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Montenegro.  

Two judges were appointed to the Constitutional Court, improving its functioning and 
efficiency,  while  full  composition  remains  to  be  achieved.  As  previously  reported,  the 
Constitutional  Court  continues  operating  in  an  incomplete  composition90.  The  Parliament 
failed several times to find the required majorities to appoint judges to still-vacant positions, 
underscoring  that  restoring  a  full  bench  remains  a  pressing  institutional  challenge. 
Nevertheless,  in  November  and  December  2025,  the  Parliament  elected  two  Constitutional 
Court  judges,  improving  the  functioning  and  efficiency  of  the  Court.  In  addition,  in 
December 2025, the Parliament decided to extend the expired mandate of one Constitutional 
Court judge, pending the election of a new judge, for a maximum period of one year. As a 
result, the Constitutional  Court operates with  six out  of seven judges.  The  absence of  clear 
statutory  rules  on  judicial  retirement  continues  to  create  uncertainties,  prompting  the 
President  of  Montenegro  to  request  the  Constitutional  Court’s  assessment  of  the  judge’s 
continuation beyond her twelve-year mandate after reaching statutory retirement age until a 
replacement  will  be  found.  The  Court,  rather  than  issuing  a  formal  decision  on  extension, 
allowed the judge to  continue performing  her duties, after having  received the Parliament’s 
written  position.  In  May  2026,  the  Parliament  adopted  amendments  to  the  Law  on 
Constitutional  Court  addressing  Venice  Commission  recommendations  on  clear  retirement 
rules  for  Constitutional  Court  judges.  At  present,  there  are  still  two  vacant  Constitutional 
Court judges positions to be proposed by the President and appointed by Parliament. 

investments  are  protected  by 

Over half of the companies surveyed in Montenegro express high levels of confidence in 
the  effectiveness  of  investment  protection.  64%  of  companies  are  very  or fairly 
confident that 
figure  which 
has slightly increased  in comparison  with  2025  (61%)91. Further, 40%  perceive  the  level  of 
independence  of  the  public  procurement  review  body  (Commission  for  the  Protection  of 
Rights in Public Procurement Procedures) as very or fairly good, a figure which has slightly 
decreased in comparison with 2025 (41%)92. 46% perceive the level of independence of the 
national  competition  authority  (Agency  for  Protection  of  the  Competition)  as  very  or fairly 
good, a figure which has significantly increased in comparison with 2025 (34%)93.  

law  and  courts,  a 

On  1  January  2026,  Montenegro  had  7  leading  judgments  of  the  European  Court  of 
Human  Rights  pending  implementation,  an  increase  of  1  compared  to  the  previous 
year94. At that time, Montenegro’s rate of leading judgments from the past 10 years that had 
been implemented was at 71% (compared to 75% in 2025; 29% remained pending), and the 
average time that the judgments had been pending implementation was 3 years and 8 months 
(compared  to  3  years  and  3  months  in  2025)95.  The  oldest  leading  judgment,  pending 
implementation for close to 10 years, concerns ill- treatment in police detention and the lack 
of an effective investigation into the relevant complaints96. As regards the respect of payment 

90   Country visit Montenegro, Constitutional Court; 2025 Rule of Law Report, Montenegro, pp. 12-13. 
91   Flash  Eurobarometer  582  (2026) and Flash  Eurobarometer  555  (2025). In  2026, only 10% and 9% of  the 
surveyed 
independence  of 
justice and the frequent changes in legislation or concerns about the quality of the law-making process as a 
reason for the lack of confidence in investment protection. 

investors  respectively  perceive concerns  about  quality,  efficiency  or 

92   Flash Eurobarometer 582 (2026) and Flash Eurobarometer 555 (2025). 
93   Flash Eurobarometer 582 (2026) and Flash Eurobarometer 555 (2025). 
94   For an explanation of the supervision process, see the website of the Council of Europe. 
95   All figures calculated by the European Implementation Network (EIN) and based on the number of cases 
that are considered pending at the annual cut-off date of 1 January 2026. EIN (2026), written input, p. 1. 
96   Judgment of the ECtHR, 1451/ten, Sinistaj and Others v. Montenegro, pending implementation since 2015. 

13 

 
 
deadlines, on 31 December 2025 there was 1 case in total awaiting confirmation of payments 
(compared  to  4  in  2024)97.  On  17  June  2026,  the  number  of  leading  judgments  pending 
implementation had increased to 8 98. 

The Government is finalising a new law on the Ombudsperson’s Office aiming to fully 
align  with  the  Paris  Principles  and  ultimately  achieve  ‘A’  status  accreditation.  The 
Ombudsperson’s Office, which is the National Human Rights Institution,  is accredited with 
B-status.  The  Government  is  finalising  a  new  draft  Law  on  the  Ombudsperson’s  Office  to 
fully align its regulatory and institutional framework with the Paris Principles and achieve an 
accreditation  upgrade  to  A-status.  The  current  draft  does  not  foresee  an  increase  regarding 
financial  and  staffing  autonomy  of  the  Ombudsperson  Office.  In  2025,  the  Office  made 
further  progress  in  handling  complaints,  completing  […]  %  of  cases  and  issuing  […] 
recommendations  in  […]  cases  [TBU].  The  Ombudsperson’s  Office  reports  that  the 
implementation of its recommendations is increasing. The Ombudsperson’s Office identified 
most violations in areas such as the prohibition of discrimination, the rights of the child, the 
right  to  good  administration  and  legal  protection,  the  rights  of  persons  deprived  of  their 
liberty,  the  right  to  work  and  employment  law.  Following  the  adoption  of  the  new  Law  on 
Equality  Protection  and  the  Prohibition  of  Discrimination,  the  Ombudsperson  is  granted 
expanded competences in the field of protection against discrimination, including defining its 
role as the national equality body99. 

Civil society organisations continue to function within a largely enabling environment, 
while  stakeholders  report  inadequate  transparency  and  lack  of  meaningful,  inclusive 
consultation  in  legislative  processes.  The  civil  society  landscape  continues  to  be  rated  as 
‘narrowed’  by  Civicus100  and  stakeholders  report  a  limited  space  for  civil  society 
organisations to operate effectively101. The 2022-2026 Strategy for cooperation between state 
administration  bodies  and  civil  society  organisations  continues  to  be  implemented102. 
However,  stakeholders  perceive  the  Strategy’s  impact  on  public  funding  as  inadequate,  in 
particular  as  some  civil  society  organisations  face  challenges  in  accessing  funding  for  their 
projects103.  In  2025,  the  implementation  of  the  two-year  Program  “Network  of  Resource 
Centers  in  Montenegro”  began,  aimed  at  supporting  and  developing  the  capacities  of  non-
governmental organisations to cooperate with the state in the preparation of public policies104. 
Representatives from civil society organisations continue to be systematically included in the 
working groups drafting laws and public policies. Nevertheless, some stakeholders consider 
that  there  is  a  need  to  broaden  and  diversify  the  represented  perspectives105.  Furthermore, 
Ministries have not consistently launched calls for proposals to finance civil society projects, 

97   Council of Europe (2026), p. 163. 
98   Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC). 
99   The Law on Equality Protection and the Prohibition of Discrimination introduces six new competences that 
did  not  exist  under  the  previous  law,  relating  to:  protection  against  discrimination  of  EU  workers  and 
members of their families, free movement of workers, legal and other assistance, international cooperation, 
research, reports and recommendations, as well as information on the application of EU law. Montengrin 
government (2026), pp. 97-98. 

100   CIVICUS  (2026).  Ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed,  obstructed,  repressed 

and closed, Montenegro scored 77/100. 

101   Country visit Montenegro, civil society organisations. 
102   [Data on implementation of the Strategy - TBU]. 
103   Stakeholders  have  also  raised  the  lack  of  transparency  and  accountability  in  public  funding,  with  some 
organisations  being  concerned  by  a  perceived  lack  of  clear  and  accessible  information  about  funding 
opportunities and the allocation of resources. Country visit Montenegro, civil society organisations. 

104   Montenegrin Government (2026) written input, p. 113. 
105   Country visit Montenegro, civil society organisations. 

14 

 
 
as required by the Law on Non-Governmental Organisations. Following its re-establishment 
in  February  2025,  the  Council  for  Cooperation  between  the  Government  and  non-
governmental organisations held its first session in December 2025. 

15 

 
 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2026 Rule of Law report  
can  be 
stakeholder-consultation_en. 

  https://commission.europa.eu/publications/2026-rule-law-report-targeted-

found  at 

Agency  for  Audiovisual  Media  Services  (AMU)  (2025),  transparentnostmedija.me,  Home 
TransparentnostMedija. 

| 

Association of Professional Journalists (DPNCG) (2026), Input from Montenegro for the 2026 Rule of 
Law Report. 

(2024), 

CEPEJ 
https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/towards-a-better-evaluation-of-the-results-of-judicial-reforms-in-
the-western-balkans-dashboard-western-balkans-. 

Dashboard  Western 

Balkans 

2023 

Data 

– 

Collection, 

CIVICUS (2026), https://monitor.civicus.org/country/montenegro/. 

Consultative  Council  of  European  Judges  (2008),  Opinion  on  the  quality  of  Judicial  Decisions, 
Opinion no. 11. 

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

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2025),  Supervision  of  the  execution  of  judgments  and 
decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, 18th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers, 
https://rm.coe.int/gbr-2001-18e-rapport-annuel-2024/1680b4d77d. 

Council  of  Europe:  European  Committee  for  the  Prevention  of  Torture  and  Inhuman  or  Degrading 
Treatment  or  Punishment  (2022),  Report  to  the  Government  of  Montenegro  on  the  ad  hoc  visit  to 
Montenegro from 7 to 13 June 2022, https://rm.coe.int/1680abb132.  

Council  of  Europe  (2025),  Baseline  Evaluation  Report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Council  of 
Europe  Convention  on  access  to  official  documents,  https://rm.coe.int/baseline-evaluation-report-
montenegro/1680b0f65d.  

Council of Europe (2025a), Protocol Signed on the Establishment of the Mechanism for the Safety of 
Journalists, 10 October 2025, Protocol Signed on the Establishment of the Mechanism for the Safety 
of Journalists - Freedom of Expression. 

Council of Europe (2026), Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists – 
Montenegro, Alerts | Safety of journalists platform. 

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

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

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

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2024a),  Urgent  follow-up  Opinion  to  the  opinions  on  the 
Law on the Special State Prosecutor’s Office (CDL-AD(2024)014). 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2025), Opinion on some questions relating to the procedure 
of  early  termination  of  the  mandate  of  Constitutional  Court  judges  due  to  age  limits,  (CDL-
AD(2025)029). 

European  Centre  for  Press  and  Media  Freedom  (2026),  Media  Freedom  Rapid  Response  – 
Montenegro, https://www.mfrr.eu/monitor/.  

16 

 
European Commission (2025), 2025 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Montenegro. 

European  Commission  (2025a),  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  Montenegro  2025  Report 
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  2025 
Communication on EU enlargement policy, EUR-Lex - 52025SC0754 - EN - EUR-Lex. 

European Court of Human Rights (2026), online database, https://www.echr.coe.int/hudoc-database.  

European Court of Human Rights, Sinistaj and Others v. Montenegro, application no. 1451/10.  

GRECO  (2010),  Third  evaluation  round  on  the  Evaluation  Report  on  Montenegro  Incriminations, 
https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000
016806c9747.  

GRECO  (2020),  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  on  Corruption  prevention  in  respect  of  members  of 
parliament, 
https://rm.coe.int/fourth-evaluation-round-corruption-
and 
prevention-in-respect-of-members-of/16809a5bdd.  

prosecutors, 

judges 

GRECO (2024), Fifth evaluation Round Compliance Report Montenegro,https://rm.coe.int/grecorc5-
2024-10-final-eng-compliance-report-montenegro-public/1680b1251b. 

Ministry  of  Culture  and  Media  (2026),  EU-Montenegro  Stabilisation  and  Association  Agreement, 
15th meeting of the Sub-Committee on Justice, Freedom and Security, 10-11 February 2026. 

Ministry  of  Justice  (2024),  First  session  of  the  Council  for  Monitoring  the  Implementation  of  the 
Judicial  Reform  Strategy  2024-2027  (Održana  prva  sjednica  Savjeta  za  praćenje  sprovođenja 
Strategije  reforme  pravosuđa  2024-2027  ),  https://www.gov.me/clanak/odrzana-prva-sjednica-
savjeta-za-pracenje-sprovodenja-strategije-reforme-pravosuda-2024-2027. 

Montenegrin  Government  (2024),  Strategy  for  the  fight  against  corruption  and  its  action  plan 
(Strategija  za  borbu  protiv  korupcije  2024-2028),  https://www.gov.me/dokumenta/097c4829-b046-
4d1a-b688-857b4e7c0138t. 

Montenegrin Government (2026), written input for the 2026 Rule of Law Report. 

Montenegrin  Government  (2026a),  additional  written  contribution  from  Montenegro  for  the  2026 
Rule of Law Report, factual comments to the draft chapter. 

Montenegrin Government (2025), 2025-2028 Judicial Digitalisation Strategy (Strategija Digitalizacije 
Pravosuđa 2025-2028), https://www.gov.me/dokumenta/595fb18b-6cc2-4d00-8e24-c34d3bf894b0. 

Montenegrin  Government  (2025a),  2025-2026  Action  plan  for  the  implementation  of  the  Judicial 
Digitalization Strategy 2025-2028 (Akcioni Plan za sprovođenje Strategije Digitalizacije Pravosuđa 
2025-2028  za  period  2025  -  2026.  godine),  https://www.gov.me/dokumenta/b33d7d6c-d186-4e6d-
a34c-a36080842285. 

Montenegro  Media  Institute  Osservatorio  Balcani  Caucaso  Transeuropa  (2025),  Challenges  to  the 
Rule  of  Law  and  Media  Freedom 
in  Montenegro,  https://www.mminstitute.org/wp-
content/uploads/2025/07/Shadow-report_Montenegro_final-II.pdf?utm. 

Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa, (2025), Women journalists in Montenegro, dealing with 
endless  criminal  proceedings,  24  November  2025,  Women  journalists  in  Montenegro,  dealing  with 
endless criminal proceedings - Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa. 

SafeJournalists (2025),  Lakić Testifies Before the High Court for the First Time: The Attack on Me 
Was Motivated by My Journalistic Work, 4 December 2025, Lakić Testifies Before the High Court for 
the First Time: The Attack on Me Was Motivated by My Journalistic Work - SafeJournalists. 

Trade Union of Media of Montenegro (TUMM), 23 January 2026,  Research on the socio-economic 
status of journalists and other media professionals in Montenegro, Research on the socio-economic 
status  of  journalists  and  other  media  professionals  in  Montenegro  -  Trade  Union  of  Media  of 
Montenegro. 

17 

 
Annex II: Country visit to Montenegro  

The Commission services held hybrid meetings in March 2025 with: 

•  Agency for Electronic Media 
•  Agency for Personal Data Protection and Free Access to Information 
•  Agency for Prevention of Corruption 
•  Association of Judges 
•  Association of Prosecutors 
•  Association of Professional Journalists 
•  Association of Youth with Disabilities in Montenegro 
•  Centre for Civic Education  
•  Center for Democracy and Human Rights 
•  Civic Alliance 
•  Constitutional Court 
•  Council of Europe 
•  European Union support to the Rule of Law IV (EUROL IV) 
•  Help – Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe Montenegro 
•  High Court 
•  Human Rights Action 
• 
Institut Alternativa 
•  Judicial Council  
•  Media Centre 
•  Media Institute 
•  Media Self-Regulation Council 
•  Montenegrin Bar Association 
•  Network for Affirmation of Non-Governmental Sector 
•  Ombudsman 
•  Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe 
•  Parliamentary Constitutional Committee 
•  Police specialised department for corruption and unit for financial investigation 
•  Prosecutorial Council  
•  Special State Prosecutor’s Office (SSPO) 
•  State Audit Institution  
•  State Prosecutor’s Office (SDT) 
•  Supreme Court 
•  Trade Union of Media of Montenegro 
•  Queer Montenegro 
•  Women’s Right Centre 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

•  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
•  Civil Society Europe 
•  End FGM EU 
•  European Civic Forum 
•  European Partnership for Democracy 
•  Human Rights Watch 
• 

ILGA-Europe 

18 

 
 
• 
International Federation for Human Rights 
•  Philea - Philanthropy Europe Association 
•  Transparency International EU 

19