The Legislative Committee has voted on the bills concerning the ratification of the Agreement between Montenegro and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) regarding collaboration in tourism, real estate development, and economic cooperation. It has been determined that these agreements align with the Constitution and the domestic legal framework.

Several MPs and NGO representatives urged the Committee to provide a more comprehensive explanation regarding the concerns raised during the session, notably the absence of a public debate, the rapid adoption of the agreements, and the numerous typographical errors present. The opposition argued that the agreements contradict the Constitution.

Committee President Dragan Bojović stated that there was nothing they could do but vote, as these are interstate agreements, and he emphasized that they cannot predict how the MPs in the Assembly will decide.

The main discussion point revolved around the agreement involving cooperation between the two nations in tourism and real estate development, as well as the potential construction of a megaproject at Ulcinj’s Velika Plaza.

Public Works Minister Majda Adžović noted that the state’s usual sluggishness is well-known, and while she acknowledges the concerns regarding the speed of the process, she assured that there is nothing covert in the documents. She mentioned that the exemption from the Public Procurement Act was designed to ensure security for potential investors and confirmed that the agreements are compliant with domestic laws.

From the parliamentary benches of the Europe Now Movement (PES), comments emerged regarding the expedited announcement and adoption of the agreement, which could invite criticism. It was also noted that the translation of the agreement into the national language was poorly executed.

The largest investment discussed via “WhatsApp”

Executive Director of the Network for the Affirmation of the Non-Governmental Sector (MANS), Vanja Ćalović Marković, expressed concerns about whether the agreement prioritizes itself above the Constitution and whether it might conflict with existing international agreements that Montenegro has ratified. She underscored that this has not been sufficiently clarified to the MPs expected to vote.

“Article 52 of the Law on State Administration mandates that every ministry must conduct a public debate during the law preparation process. Such a debate was not held, and the ministry is also required to justify this omission. The Venice Commission has repeatedly reminded the Parliament that public debate is essential in the legislative process. Had it been ensured, we would not be facing these ambiguities and debates, nor would the agreements be processed under urgent procedure. Citizens would have had the chance to suggest measures to safeguard the public interest. There were no unforeseen circumstances to justify the application of the urgent procedure,” she stated, adding that the potential damages were not taken into account.

Ćalović Marković questioned the urgency of the proceedings and highlighted that the agreement obligates the Government to take all necessary legislative steps for implementation, which she believes cannot be fulfilled. The economic cooperation agreement pertains to wide-ranging areas, while the other was discussed informally.

“If this is the largest investment in Montenegro’s history, why is it being decided at 9 PM via ‘WhatsApp’? Why is Parliament handling this under urgent procedure when the affected citizens haven’t had any opportunity to voice their opinions? Instead, they are told discussions will occur after the fact. This seems intended to finalize proceedings between two holidays. Regarding the constitutional compliance of the tourism agreement, it violates the separation of powers principle by bestowing legislative authority on the Government. Once Parliament approves this, it supersedes Montenegrin laws and grants the Government powers not permitted by the Constitution,” she asserted.

She further argued that this agreement is distinct from others, especially given that the project’s location remains undisclosed. She raised concerns about the future of private property as unseen projects are declared in the public interest, which the Law on Spatial Planning and Development states must be determined through spatial plans.

“The Constitution maintains that when an issue is of public interest, property can be expropriated with compensation. An investor from another state could claim someone’s ancestral land for construction, leaving the owner powerless to defend their property. Public interest shouldn’t be dictated by a special law, as is typical in standardized states, but rather determined collectively through spatial plans. I firmly believe this approach is not only unconstitutional but also contradicts international standards on how we determine public interest,” she elaborated, noting the link to earlier attempts to facilitate investor operations.

She noted that the investor is proposing the construction of apartments and questioned whether Parliament is relinquishing its right to decide on state property rentals exceeding 30 years, emphasizing that PES MP Vasilije Čarapić cannot amend an agreement signed with another nation.

Ćalović Marković remarked that, in addition to tender processes, the Government is taking measures to secure land without public procurement or tendering procedures. She also pointed out that the investor is permitted to sell apartments prior to construction, while the Law on Concessions is similarly exempt due to agreement suspensions. Moreover, she indicated that the Competition Protection Agency was not consulted, as breaching competition laws could impair EU accession.

She asserted that the cancellation of the agreement would not affect initiated agreements unless documented otherwise.

“Legal uncertainties are being fostered without any arbitration provisions. The agreement specifies that issues are to be resolved diplomatically; however, what happens if no agreement is reached? Construction is anticipated, and contracts cannot be terminated without consent from another state. Once adopted, these matters will be settled and governed by the agreement,” she reiterated.

State protected, inadequate translation

PES MP Darko Dragović affirmed that the agreement could be revoked, but noted that the English version pertains to initiated projects. He concurred with Democrat MP Duško Stijepović on the inadequacy of the agreement’s translation while asserting that the state remains entirely protected, despite these shortcomings.

Dragović emphasized that questioning a legal expert’s authority, who suggests that ratified international treaties need not align with the Constitution, is misplaced, as they hold equal authority.

“Beaches cannot fall under private ownership; that right cannot be acquired. While it’s true that the Concessions Act’s norms do not apply here, I cannot conclude that beaches are subjects of the agreement. The real picture will only emerge when we have the contract, which will specify microlocation. There is absolutely no threat of an investor claiming beach land contrary to Maritime Law,” he explained, noting that the agreement’s provisions ensure that EU accession remains secure.

He clarified that since the project’s location is not currently determined, concerns about the appropriation of private property are unfounded, as it may occur on state land. He also stated that endorsing the contract establishes the basis for determining public interest, under which they have assurances from Prime Minister Milojko Spajić that apartments intended for the market will not be constructed.

“No article, except for Article 2, paragraph 4, nullifies the authority of domestic law. You insinuate that the Government is usurping Parliamentary jurisdiction, but legislative authority and power are not synonymous. The absence of defined arbitration does not eliminate the possibility of including it in an agreement with the foreign entity,” he elaborated.

Minister Majda Adžović indicated that details can be discussed in a program where she and Ćalović Marković will appear together. In response, Ćalović Marković insisted that discussions need to occur immediately, given that the law is set to be adopted the following day. She remarked that if the English terms are not sufficiently precise to safeguard state interests, the agreement should be revisited for revision.

“There would be no repercussions for Parliament if it schedules a special session on this issue, as it pertains to the country’s largest investment. We haven’t seen the project. By claiming it’s in the public interest, we are making premature judgments… A foreign investor receives preferential treatment compared to other foreign entities regarding property rights. I believe this agreement should require a two-thirds majority for voting, under unique conditions. The Constitution is explicit in such situations, necessitating a two-thirds majority. Whether it aligns with the Constitution will be evaluated by the Constitutional Court,” she remarked, adding that an agreement on market competition already exists, which this agreement seems to bypass.

Adžović clarified that the state will not undertake infrastructure projects without a tender process, pinning the discussion around the European trajectory that must remain unimpeded, as stated in the agreement. She reiterated that the crux of the agreement is a tourism initiative, not a housing project. In contrast, Ćalović Marković emphasized that land can only be expropriated with compensation if public interest is properly defined, which the UAE is unlikely to care for regarding state-owned locations.

No harm to state interests

Adžović stated that the motivations for passing these laws are delineated in the program of the 44th Government, which prioritizes economic advancement, improved standards, and EU membership.

Čarapić mentioned that it is fitting for Montenegro to engage in this type of agreement, asserting that until the country joins the EU, it is entitled to do so.

“We cannot dismiss the valid criticisms regarding the rapid announcement and adoption of the agreement. For a society accustomed to inertia, this haste is unusual and invites scrutiny. Nevertheless, I argue that, in its current format, it does not endanger national interests, as it lacks specificity regarding region and investor involvement; it’s also not out of the ordinary. Here, the investor-government relationship will be defined in a contract that we do not have on the table yet, thus I do not observe any harm or legal ambiguities. Prior to the session, I submitted an amendment requiring Parliament to confirm the contracts and take decisions regarding state property management,” stated Čarapić.

He recalled similar actions taken concerning the Brskov mine project, which ultimately failed due to local population threats, and highlighted analogous situations with the Montrose project on the Herceg Novi section of the Luštica peninsula, where issues are currently managed through audits concerning the Igalo Institute and Sveti Stefan.

Adžović confirmed that project models will be evaluated post-agreement adoption, emphasizing contracts Montenegro doesn’t currently possess while ensuring all stakeholders will partake in discussions. She noted that several investments executed under the Law on State Property resulted in long-term land leases costing 15 to 50 cents per square meter, often at extremely low rates…

This is why she articulated that they seek to position Montenegro as a partner in the project rather than merely selling land, hence their requests for exemptions from the Law on State Property. She firmly stated that Parliament will inevitably need to approve all resolutions.

“The approval of these agreements will not alter the legal institute and regime of expropriation. If we encounter a contract draft deemed incompatible with Montenegro’s laws, the existing laws remain in effect—particularly the Law on Public Procurement and State Property,” Adžović concluded.

Čarapić insisted that project approval must involve local residents, asserting that where local dissent exists, investments will not proceed.

Dragović maintained that discussions about the agreement’s constitutionality are moot because, should it be ratified, Article 9 of the Constitution states that “ratified international treaties are an integral part of the internal legal order, take precedence over domestic legislation, and are directly applicable when they regulate matters not covered by domestic laws.” He clarified that it is indisputable that Parliament authorizes such actions and stated that the agreements abide by the Constitution, with subsequent agreements with the UAE carrying particularly significant weight.

Every third case overlooked

Democratic MP Duško Stijepović expressed concern over the multitude of errors in the agreements, claiming almost every third detail was neglected.

Albanian Alliance MP Ilir Čapuni noted that Ulcinj is troubled by the urgency that infringes upon the public’s right to express opinions, questioning the rush.

“Under which law did we designate housing construction as a national interest? Why are we venturing beyond established plans into housing development, and what if the European Commission raises concerns about the agreement after we vote for it?” queried Čapuni.

Dragović reiterated that he sees no concern for local communities, insisting that the Assembly will ultimately decide on all related matters, with no justifiable reason to delay the agreement’s ratification.

The Civic Movement URA parliamentary group expressed that the government has created confusion by initially presenting the Velika Plaza project, subsequently stating multiple locations, with no guarantee a project in Ulcinj would actually occur.

“This agreement directly violates our national legislation and the Constitution; if we pass agreements that undermine our institutions, we are violating fundamental constitutional principles. Velika Plaza is a protected area, and in accordance with all conventions and the Constitution, any discussion or agreements concerning that area should involve consultations with NGOs and the public. The residents of Ulcinj have communicated their opposition to such investments, as has the Municipal Assembly. Therefore, you have disregarded both the Constitution and various conventions,” they concluded.

News