When the rules are silent on conflict of interest

About the publication

Authors: Jovana Radulović, Ivan Kašćelan, Oscar Berisha

Publishing year: 2026

When the University of Montenegro (UoM) is confronted with a question of a possible conflict of interest, its response most often comes down to the assertion that a particular course of action is not explicitly prohibited, rather than an assessment of the risk it may pose to impartial decision-making. The distinction between “not prohibited” and “not problematic” lies at the heart of this paper.

The Centre for Civic Education (CCE) analysed the UoM regulatory framework and found that the Statute of the University of Montenegro recognises conflict of interest as a possible ground for removal from office, but not as a risk that should be reported, assessed and prevented in a timely manner. There is no definition of conflict of interest or related persons, no disclosure obligation, and no procedure for recusal from decision-making. These are not legacy gaps inherited from earlier regulations: the UoM adopted a new Statute in June 2026, reproducing almost verbatim the provisions of the 2015 Statute and missing the opportunity to introduce even basic preventive mechanisms.

Several cases demonstrate how such a regulatory gap operates in practice and what remains beyond the reach of the existing rules. The absence of recusal rules creates problems in various situations, including those in which an employee is involved in litigation against the institution while decisions concerning their promotion or continued employment are made by individuals involved in that same dispute.