Constitutional Court without majority to initiate review of the constitutionality of the Law Confirming the Agreement with the UAE
Judges who voted to initiate the proceedings believed, among other things, that the Law confirming the Agreement with the Emirates should have been adopted by a two-thirds majority because it regulates the property rights of foreigners, while the judges who voted against argued that the agreement does not affect foreigners’ property rights in a way that would require a two-thirds majority
At today’s session of the Constitutional Court of Montenegro, there was no majority for the proposal of the judge-rapporteur to initiate proceedings to review the constitutionality of 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.
As specified in the statement, two female judges and one male judge voted in favor of initiating the constitutionality review of the Law confirming 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 believed that the Law confirming the Agreement with the Emirates should have been adopted by a two-thirds majority because it regulates the property rights of foreigners. Otherwise, they argued, Parliament could adopt other international treaties by a simple majority even when such treaties regulate issues that require a qualified majority, such as electoral rights, which could include the regulation of dual citizenship – the Constitutional Court said.
The judges emphasized that an international treaty takes precedence over domestic laws and therefore must be assessed from the perspective of the constitutional principles of the rule of law, the unity of the legal order, and legal certainty, particularly considering that the Agreement has not yet entered into legal force and therefore cannot produce consequences for Montenegro under international law.
- Regarding the Law confirming the NATO Agreement, the judges considered that it does not represent 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 aimed at its implementation, thereby not raising issues of legal certainty - the statement specified.
Judges who voted against initiating the proceedings took the position that, in this particular case, the Constitutional Court 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 confirmed, and that the Agreement does not affect foreigners’ property rights in a way that would require two-thirds support.
- They also stated that the Constitution of Montenegro does not recognize prior constitutional review, but only subsequent review of the formal constitutionality of laws. Additionally, they argued that this would reopen the issue of the constitutionality of the Law confirming the Agreement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), considering that it was ratified by the votes of 46 MPs even though the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in the first round of voting for the deployment of Montenegro’s armed forces in international forces - the Constitutional Court 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 by the Parliament of Montenegro on June 3, 2025, in a repeated vote, while initiatives for a constitutionality review were submitted to the Constitutional Court on June 23 and July 30, 2025.
This concerns an international treaty which the initiators of the review, Budva Municipal Assembly councilor Đorđe Zenović and the NGO Center for Protection and Research of Birds, claim was adopted contrary to the Constitution and could produce serious consequences for the interests of the state, which the Government of Montenegro, as a signatory to the Agreement, denies.
- The Constitutional Court held a public hearing in this case on December 15, 2025, which was broadcast live on the internet and carried by two television stations with national frequencies. At the hearing, opinions were presented by constitutional law professor and former President of the Constitutional Court Mladen Vukčević, constitutional law professors Đorđe Gardašević from Zagreb and Vladimir Đurić from Belgrade, professor of international public 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 Constitutional Court recalled.