The leader of the citizen group “Movement for the City” and council member of the Budva parliament, Đorđe Zenović, has submitted a request to the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of the process employed to adopt the Law on Ratification of the Agreement on Cooperation in the Realm of Tourism and Real Estate Development between the Government of Montenegro and the Government of the United Arab Emirates. This law was passed by the Parliament of Montenegro.

In the submitted initiative, which “Vijesti” has reviewed, Zenović argues that Article 91, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of Montenegro has been violated.

“On April 23, the Parliament of Montenegro ratified the Law on Cooperation in Tourism and Real Estate Development with the UAE. A total of 46 MPs voted in favor. The President of Montenegro, Jakov Milatovic, exercised his constitutional right by refusing to sign the Decree for the Proclamation of the Law. Subsequently, the deputies reconfirmed the Law during the fourth session of the regular (spring) session on June 3, with only 41 votes in favor,” Zenović elaborated in his initiative.

Zenović contends that the majority supporting the Law was insufficient for its promulgation, as the voting and ratification process violates the provisions regarding decision-making in the Assembly.

“The relevant article states: ‘The Assembly shall decide by a two-thirds majority of all deputies on laws concerning the electoral system and property rights of foreigners.’ Hence, a two-thirds majority of 54 deputies is required to legislate on property rights of foreigners. Our laws define property rights for foreigners in the Law on Property Relations. Article 415, paragraph 1, outlines limitations derived from the general principle in Article 412 that ensures equality between foreigners and Montenegrins concerning property rights to real estate. Specifically, it stipulates that ‘a foreigner cannot own rights over natural resources, publicly used property, agricultural land, forests, and cultural monuments of exceptional importance, as well as land in border areas and certain islands,’” noted Zenović.

He added that paragraph 4 of the same article mentions that “a foreign individual may have rights to long-term leases, concessions, or other public-private partnership arrangements concerning real estate, similar to a local individual.”

“However, the contested Law does not clarify if project implementations will involve the sale of state-owned or private land to foreign nationals (specifically, UAE nationals) or if they will proceed through arrangements like long-term leases or concessions. This ambiguity implies a potential sale of state or private land, which would violate the stipulations of the Law on Property and Legal Relations related to foreign property rights. Thus, it undermines constitutionally enshrined rights and disrupts legal certainty,” asserted Zenović.

He emphasized that the contested Law lacks explicit declarations on how investments would be operationalized, raising concerns over whether planned suspensions of the Law on State Property would enable the direct sale of state land or force the expropriation of private land for the benefit of a specific UAE entity.

“If the purpose of the bilateral Agreement is to bypass the Law on Property Relations concerning UAE nationals, then its ratification should comply with Article 91, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, necessitating a two-thirds majority for adoption. The text of the disputed Law does not facilitate a teleological or objective interpretation; we can only derive an interpretation through logical reasoning. A broad interpretation is crucial, particularly as the Agreement covers numerous rights guaranteed by the Constitution and critical international documents, including property rights and legal remedy provisions,” evaluated Zenović.

He urged the Constitutional Court to accept the Initiative, issue a ruling to probe the constitutionality of the legislative process, and suspend the execution of the Law and Agreement until a determination is made regarding their constitutional validity.

Ambiguity surrounding public interest projects and mixed-use real estate

Regarding the text of the contested Agreement, Zenović highlighted several ambiguous provisions. He referred to Article 1, which states: “The following collectively identified projects in tourism and real estate development are deemed strategic and represent public interest.”

“This article and the remainder of the Agreement leave vague what constitutes tourism development, what signifies projects of public interest, and the definition of mixed-use real estate. These generalized terms could lead to varied interpretations, presenting potential issues for Montenegro as a foreign contracting party in the future. Thus, it underscores the need for broad interpretation of the Agreement, especially concerning possible exemptions from domestic legislation about property rights for foreign individuals or entities, specifically UAE citizens,” Zenović remarked.

News