Court experts play a significant role in the delivery of judgments, as well as in resolving other issues, especially in administrative proceedings. The Law on Court Experts, which was adopted in 2016 and is still in force, contains certain shortcomings related to the appointment, reappointment, remuneration and payment of expenses to experts, payment deadlines, issuing approvals to legal entities to conduct expert assessments, and the like. The Law stipulates that the appointment of one member to the Expert Commission belongs to the Association of Court Experts. The Association of Court Experts of Montenegro is clearly not, either formally or in essence, the association that should appoint members of the aforementioned Commission. Formally, because this Association was established before the adoption of the current law, as an NGO, and because its name is different from the name specified in the Law, and essentially because the way the association works and functions is not regulated by law. The method of financing, the method of organization, registration, as well as other powers that a professional organization should have are not regulated. Instead of being professional, it is a non-governmental organization. Professional, because it needs to bring together licensed experts and is not an association of citizens, in order to be an NGO.
From publicly published analyses conducted by various organizations, we learn that the issue of reappointment of those experts who are not members of the USVCCG was raised. Since the reappointment procedure requires experts to submit a list of cases in which they acted, and that the bodies before which the experts acted provide an opinion on their work, this statement by these bodies should be sufficient for the reappointment of the expert.
On the other hand, the USVCCG, in the period since the adoption of the law in 2016, has not adopted a Program for the Training of Experts, which was its obligation, since it intended to organize training of experts and issue opinions on experts who attended the trainings. From its existence until today, there has been no training of experts. Perhaps because there cannot be, because experts are trained at institutions whose level cannot be achieved through the training of any NGO, including this one.
The results of the USVCCG in the previous period are almost imperceptible in relation to the improvement of the status of experts. The Draft Law on Court Experts was put up for public debate on 12. 11. 2025, and the deadline for submitting comments expired on 02. 12. 2025. The proposed Draft, in which the USVCCG participated, does not contain any provisions regarding the remuneration of experts and reimbursement of costs for actions performed in the expert examination procedure. The Personal Income Tax Law provides for the taxation of other independent activities, which is expert examination, with the recognition of standard costs of 30%, and the calculation of tax at a rate of 15% on the remaining remuneration. This rate was increased by an amendment to the law from 2022, and all unpaid remuneration to experts from the previous period was taxed at a rate of 15% instead of the rate of 9%, which would have applied if the remuneration had been paid on time. Therefore, the law does not prescribe either the amounts or the deadlines for payment for the performed actions to the expert. The tax was increased three years ago, but the fee was not.
The draft law contains a series of norms that envisage the establishment of a chamber, imposing on experts the obligation to pay a membership fee, which should cover all expenses of the chamber that it will have. The amount of the individual membership fee will depend on the number of members of the chamber, whereby the number of its members, or experts in general, could very easily become questionable.
In an analysis conducted by CEMI in 2017, it is stated that there are 980 court experts, and that 129 of them are members of the Chamber of Experts of Montenegro, while on 28. 10. 2025. the register of the Ministry of Justice states that there are 668 court experts (the list is torn, but the number may be wrong for several experts). Therefore, in 8 years the number of experts in Montenegro has decreased by over 30%. Since it cannot be concluded from the list of the Ministry of Justice how many experts have been appointed for the first time in the last few years, given the current attitude of the system towards experts, it is very easy to get into a situation where the number of experts in the next few years will decrease by another 30%. Moreover, this decrease in certain professions may be 100% (where there are few of them), and those who remain will be obliged to finance the work of the chamber, as a mandatory organization, which will not and cannot guarantee their engagement. Not because they don't want to, but because the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act do not allow this, which stipulates that in litigation, an expert is proposed by the party proposing the expert opinion. In other proceedings, if there is no similar solution, then at least it must be clearly prescribed how equal engagement is ensured. Nor does prescribing equal representation guarantee that they will be engaged, because no one can prejudge whether there will be any proceedings in which their profession will be represented. The CEMI analysis states that the fees to the Commission for taking the exam are too high, but there were no changes in that part in the published Draft. On the contrary, it is proposed that compensation for work in the Commission be received for each month that it is in session. The Commission itself will probably estimate how many sessions there will be.
Therefore, it is clear to anyone who knows the legal system of Montenegro that the profession of expert witness is not one in which engagement is guaranteed, that expert witnesses are not responsible for there being too few or too many of them, that due to obligations they cannot complete cases in the given time, because expert witnessing is not a professional profession and the like, and that there are numerous mechanisms for expert witnesses who do not respect their obligations to be punished in the prescribed manner or dismissed from their duties.
The deletion of the provisions on expert fees and reimbursement of expenses, which are not insignificant, although they vary from profession to profession, introduces additional uncertainty as to what the compensation will be and when it will be determined. The current hourly compensation for an expert is 11 euros, gross, while the net is slightly above 9 euros, depending on the collection of taxes and surtax, or the municipality of residence of the expert. Other items, such as arrival at the hearing, preparation for the hearing, are not even close to the compensation for the work of lawyers, who act in the same cases, because their arrival is obviously many times more expensive than the arrival of the expert, without whose findings the procedure cannot be completed. If an expert travels to another municipality for a hearing that does not take place, no one will reimburse him for travel expenses or other expenses.
Considering all of the above, I believe that it is necessary, in the Law on Court Experts, to define only the conditions for the appointment of experts, the conditions for determining a legal entity for expert testimony, the remuneration and reimbursement of expenses for experts, to delete the renewal of licenses, and to transfer the determination of ethical responsibility to a body that deals with determining such responsibility of holders of judicial or other public offices or civil servants. This is because it is envisaged that the Minister shall appoint the disciplinary prosecutor from among the judges.
Although the law provides for the possibility of initiating a procedure to dismiss an expert, which procedures have not been initiated, according to the analyses that have been conducted, additional administration is now being introduced, which should resolve what has already been prescribed.
The appointment after every 6 years puts experts in an unequal position compared to other professions, which are not required to renew their licenses. It is necessary to remove it at least for experts who have performed expert assessments for a period of 6 years, because it is reduced to a formality and a session of the Commission, which receives compensation for this, probably at the expense of the budget of Montenegro, because experts do not pay compensation for re-appointment.
Since I have significant experience in proceedings before administrative and judicial authorities, as well as being familiar with the organization and work of experts, I believe that the law should:
- Define more complex conditions for the appointment of an expert witness, with at least 10 years of experience but in the specialized field for which the candidate is applying and with more serious other conditions (exam, other licenses and training, scientific titles, and the like).
- Define narrower specializations and appoint experts to areas in which they are proven to be specialized. The current professions are set too broadly, so we have situations where an expert who graduated, for example, in mechanical engineering is an expert in everything from the field of mechanical engineering, from vehicles to complex plants, regardless of the fact that he has specialization in only one area. Would a general surgery specialist be called to be an expert in a broken leg injury? An expert in the economic profession becomes a person who graduated from a university in the field of management, just because management is part of economics, and has never dealt with any calculations or matters for which he will be an expert during his work;
- Define compensation and link it to the compensation of other judicial professions. Hourly rates are not a good solution because they do not encourage efficiency (those who work longer will be paid more, right?), and experts are not employed by the body in which they provide expert testimony, so hourly rates are difficult to measure and are not relevant. Someone can work for hours without solving the question they are asked, while someone can do it in an hour;
- Define the conditions that a legal entity, for each area of expertise for which it seeks a license, must have at least one full-time employee. This practice exists in other licensed professions. It is not sustainable for a legal entity to have only one employee for one area, perhaps part-time, and be granted the right to provide expertise in other areas in which it does not have any employees;
- Delete all norms related to the organization of experts and the imposition of financial and educational obligations on experts. No organization of experts, in any legal form of existence, can provide training for all professions because experts are from diverse professions, who acquire their knowledge and skills in professional organizations, faculties and other similar organizations. What can any organization of experts teach a doctor specializing in ophthalmology or surgery Or an expert with a doctorate in technical sciences? Should he, for not attending such training, be dismissed from his duties as an expert? If so, then it will happen quickly, unfortunately for all of us;
- Delete all norms relating to the disciplinary responsibilities of experts, because the determination of the responsibilities of experts is already defined in other laws. If there are gaps, amend the laws in which such a thing is prescribed.
In general, experts should be encouraged to become experts, obligations should not be prescribed in the absence of rights, unnecessary administrative procedures should not be imposed, prices for services and payment deadlines for expert opinions should be determined, and the conduct of experts should be monitored through established mechanisms. Failure to comply with existing measures is not a justification for introducing new measures against experts. In few areas is there a better mechanism for monitoring the work of experts than the one established for experts, according to which any dissatisfied party has the right to propose another expert and team of experts, through which the expertise of experts is most efficiently verified.
The author is a graduate of ECC and an expert in economic and financial matters.
Bonus video:
