Constitutional Court: No decision has been made on the constitutionality of the Law on the Agreement with the UAE, contrary interpretations prejudge the outcome

The Constitutional Court of Montenegro has not made a decision on either the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the Law on the Ratification of the Agreement with the Emirates. The vote ended in a 3:3 tie, meaning that the reporting judge’s proposal did not receive the constitutionally required majority of four votes, the Constitutional Court stated.

Accordingly, the highest judicial instance said that the case will be reconsidered after the appointment of the missing judges, or earlier if one of the judges changes their position.

In such a situation, they say, any presentation of this vote as confirmation of constitutionality is not based on facts and prejudges the decision in this case.

As a reminder, the Government stated yesterday that the Constitutional Court’s vote confirmed that the interstate agreement is in line with the Constitution.

- Alongside a clear political stance and the idea of sustainable investments that would further position Montenegro on the global tourism map, today we also received institutional confirmation that the Montenegrin Government, through this document, protected its interests and did not guarantee a privileged position to any country or individual, as could be heard in numerous public statements by certain political groups - the Government said.

The Constitutional Court noted that it has repeatedly emphasized that only a full composition of the Court guarantees that decisions will always be made in all cases.

They recalled that two female judges and one male judge voted in favor of initiating proceedings to assess the constitutionality of the Law on the Ratification of the Agreement with the Emirates, while two male judges and one female judge voted against initiating the proceedings.

- The judges who voted to initiate the proceedings considered that the Law on the Ratification of the Agreement with the Emirates should have been adopted by a two-thirds majority because it regulates the property rights of foreigners. Otherwise, Parliament could adopt other international agreements by a simple majority even though they regulate issues that require a qualified majority, such as electoral rights, which may include regulating the issue of dual citizenship. The judges emphasized that an international agreement takes precedence over domestic laws and must therefore be assessed from the perspective of constitutional principles such as the rule of law, the unity of the legal system, and legal certainty, especially considering that the Agreement has not yet entered into legal force and cannot produce consequences for Montenegro under international law - the Constitutional Court explained.

Regarding the Law on the Ratification of the NATO Agreement, they clarified that the judges considered it not to be the same constitutional-legal situation, given that it is a multilateral treaty, does not raise issues concerning the fundamental principles on which the Constitution is based, and does not create an obligation to adopt special laws or undertake activities for its implementation, thereby not raising the issue of legal certainty.

- The judges who voted against initiating the proceedings took the position that the Constitutional Court, in this specific case, is not competent to assess the substantive content of a law confirming an international agreement, that the law in question does not call into question the parliamentary majority by which the Agreement was ratified, and that the Agreement does not affect the property rights of foreigners in a way that would require two-thirds support. The judges also stated that our Constitution does not recognize prior constitutional review, but only subsequent review of the formal constitutionality of laws. Additionally, the view was that this would reopen the issue of compliance with the Constitution of the Law on the Ratification of the Agreement with the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO), given that it was ratified with the votes of 46 MPs, even though the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in the first round of voting for the use of the Armed Forces of Montenegro in international forces - the statement said.

The Law confirming the Agreement on cooperation in the field of tourism and real estate development between the Government of Montenegro and the Government of the United Arab Emirates was adopted in the Parliament of Montenegro on June 3, 2025, in a repeated vote, while initiatives for assessing its constitutionality were submitted to the Constitutional Court on June 23 and July 30, 2025.

This is an international agreement which, according to the initiators, municipal assembly member in Budva Đorđe Zenović and the NGO Center for the Protection and Study of Birds, was adopted contrary to the Constitution and could have serious consequences for the interests of the state, which the Government of Montenegro, as a signatory to the Agreement, denies.

The statement recalls that the Constitutional Court held a public hearing in this case on December 15, 2025, which was broadcast live online and aired by two national television stations.

- At the public hearing, opinions were presented by Professor of Constitutional Law and former President of the Constitutional Court Mladen Vukčević, Professors of Constitutional Law Đorđe Gardašević from Zagreb and Vladimir Đurić from Belgrade, Professor of Public International Law and former judge of the European Court of Human Rights Nebojša Vučinić, Professor of Private International Law Vladimir Čolović from Belgrade, and Professor of Private International and Environmental Law Maja Kostić Mandić from Podgorica - the statement concluded.