The Centre for Civic Education (CCE) continues to monitor and analyse Montenegro’s performance in implementing the obligations set out in the Reform Agenda 2024–2027, a key document governing the use of funds available under the European Union Growth Plan for the Western Balkans.
In our previous review, we focused on three of the five reform steps whose implementation deadline expires at the end of this month. These measures relate to the business environment and private sector development and are linked to approximately EUR 8.1 million in EU funding.
The remaining two reform steps fall within the areas of fundamental rights and the rule of law, carrying a combined value of nearly EUR 7 million.
One of these reform steps concerns constitutional amendments aimed at further aligning Montenegro’s judicial framework with European standards on the independence, accountability, integrity, and professionalism of the judiciary and prosecution service, in line with recommendations from the European Commission, the Venice Commission, and GRECO. Approximately EUR 4.6 million is tied to this reform step. However, it now appears increasingly likely that Montenegro will lose the funds allocated for its implementation. This reform package also includes amendments to the Law on the Judicial Council and Judges and the Law on the State Prosecutor’s Office. Although some progress has been made regarding the legislative framework, the constitutional amendments remain the crucial component of this reform step, as its final fulfilment depends on their adoption.
As early as its Second Semi-Annual Report, the Government stated that the draft constitutional amendments had been submitted to Parliament in June 2025, a claim repeated in the subsequent reporting period. While the proposal was discussed by the Constitutional Committee, it did not advance further. Notably, in February 2026, the Government withdrew its own proposal, citing the need to further regulate the constitutional status of the Prosecutorial Council. This development points to a reform process that was inadequately prepared and strategically mismanaged in one of the country’s most important policy areas. It should be recalled that amendments to the Law on the State Prosecutor’s Office adopted in 2021 were criticised by both the European Union and the Council of Europe due to concerns over increased political influence on the Prosecutorial Council. At the same time, international partners have for years recommended that the composition of the Prosecutorial Council be regulated by the Constitution in order to further strengthen its independence. Unfortunately, decision-makers have failed to demonstrate the necessary political will and urgency to implement this recommendation in a timely manner.
Shortly after withdrawing the original proposal, the Government submitted a new proposal for constitutional amendments. However, this initiative also failed to progress beyond consideration by the Constitutional Committee. Given the procedures prescribed under Article 156 of the Constitution of Montenegro, it is now clear that there is insufficient time remaining to complete the process before the deadline expires. Adoption of a draft constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds parliamentary majority, followed by a mandatory public consultation lasting at least one month, and then another two-thirds majority vote on the final proposal. This confirms that delays, procedural missteps, and a lack of political and institutional readiness have jeopardised the implementation of one of the key rule-of-law reform steps.
The second reform step in the area of fundamental rights and the rule of law concerns the interconnection of, and access to, databases maintained by public institutions with which the Special State Prosecutor’s Office (SSPO) cooperates. The baseline situation envisaged access to databases of nine institutions, while the target was to increase this number to thirteen.
In its first report, the Government assessed this reform step as completed, arguing that the SSPO already had access to a wide range of institutional databases and that access to personal income data held by the Tax Administration had been granted in November 2024. However, the European Commission concluded that the reform step had not been fully completed, as the SSPO still lacked access to fiscalisation data, Central Bank data on indebtedness and blocked accounts, and historical cadastral records.
In its second report, the Government reclassified this reform step as partially completed, noting that access to fiscalisation data had meanwhile been granted, while procedures for accessing Central Bank and cadastral data remained ongoing. The European Commission acknowledged this progress but maintained its assessment that the reform step had still not been fully completed due to the absence of access to databases held by the Central Bank of Montenegro and the Administration for Cadastre and State Property. Furthermore, significant uncertainty remains regarding the timely completion of this reform step, as it is still unclear whether the remaining activities required to secure access to these databases have been successfully finalised.
The consequences of this approach are now becoming tangible. Due to the failure to complete five reform steps – three related to the business environment and private sector development and two concerning fundamental rights and the rule of law – Montenegro faces the risk of losing more than EUR 15 million from the Growth Plan. For some obligations, it is already evident that completion within the remaining timeframe is nearly impossible.
However, the potential loss of financial resources is not the only concern. More concerning, however, are the missed opportunities to implement reforms that would strengthen institutions, reinforce the rule of law, and improve citizens’ quality of life. In this way, Montenegro is losing not only financial resources, but also its reform credibility.
CCE calls on the competent institutions to finally demonstrate seriousness and responsibility during the final phase of this process and to make every possible effort to minimise the damage caused by the slow and ineffective implementation of reforms to date. At the same time, fulfilling obligations at the last minute must not serve as an excuse for undermining the quality, sustainability, or democratic legitimacy of reform solutions.
Ivan Kašćelan, Project Assistant