The current developments regarding the construction of a wastewater treatment plant in the Municipality of Zeta represent a paradigmatic example of the collision of several constitutionally guaranteed rights, but also a serious test of the institutional capacity of the state to ensure their balanced implementation. Although the dispute is dominantly presented in public discourse as environmental and local-political, its legal essence relates to the limits of freedom of assembly, the permissibility of extra-institutional pressure, and the responsibility of the state for the protection of the rights of third parties.
Freedom of assembly is not absolute: The Constitution of Montenegro guarantees freedom of peaceful assembly and public expression of opinion (Art. 52), with the possibility of its limitation for the protection of the rights of others, public order, health and safety (Art. 24). An identical normative solution is contained in Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, according to which freedom of assembly may be limited if such a limitation is "prescribed by law, pursues a legitimate aim and is necessary in a democratic society".
The European Court of Human Rights has consistently held that the right to peaceful assembly does not include the right to impose a disproportionate burden on others. In Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania (2015), the Grand Chamber took the clear position that the blockade of major roads, especially for a prolonged period, falls outside the protected core of Article 11 of the ECHR, even when the protest concerns matters of general interest. The Court has specifically emphasised that freedom of assembly does not include the right to paralyse the normal life of the community.
Local protest and exceeding permitted limits: Within this normative framework, the gathering of Zeta citizens at the location planned for the construction of the collector can be qualified as a constitutionally and conventionally protected form of expressing dissatisfaction, especially considering the allegations that the local community was not involved during the project planning phase. However, the escalation of protests in the form of blockades of main roads, airport access points and regional traffic hubs clearly exceeds the limits of what is permissible.
The European Court, in the cases of Éva Molnár v. Hungary and Barraco v. France, emphasised that states not only have the right, but also a positive obligation, to ensure the smooth functioning of public transport and to protect the rights of those who do not participate in protests. Tolerating short-term and symbolic disruptions may be justified, but prolonged and repeated blockades of key infrastructure do not enjoy the protection of the Convention.
Protest as a factual coercion and a legal aspect of obligations: By blocking public roads, the protest takes on the character of de facto coercion towards third parties, whose rights are restricted without any legal basis. This transforms the right to assemble from a means of democratic dialogue into an instrument of direct pressure.
From the aspect of the law of obligations, such behavior can be classified as arbitrariness, or the unlawful exercise of an alleged right outside the competent authorities, contrary to the general principle that one cannot use one's own right to the detriment of another (neminem laedere). Of particular concern are situations in which citizens were prevented from moving due to urgent health or urgent needs, which, according to the standards of the ECHR, represents a serious infringement of the core rights to freedom of movement and the right to private and family life.
State passivity and selective application of law: The case law of the European Court has consistently emphasized that the state must maintain a "fair balance" between the rights of protesters and the rights of other citizens. Passivity or selective tolerance of unlawful assemblies, as observed in this case, leads to violations of the rights of those not involved in the protests.
A state that, under the pretext of maintaining public peace, actually allows long-term and unreported traffic blockades is giving up its monopoly on lawful dispute resolution. This creates a dangerous precedent in which extra-institutional pressure becomes a more effective tool than legal mechanisms, which is contrary to the fundamental principles of the rule of law.
Identity politicization as a legally irrelevant narrative: Particularly problematic is the translation of a legal and environmental dispute into an identity conflict, in which state measures are presented as an expression of discrimination against a particular national or religious community. The European Court has repeatedly warned that political or identity-based motivation for protests cannot justify actions that seriously threaten the rights of others. Such rhetoric, instead of contributing to a legal solution, serves exclusively for political mobilization and the relativization of responsibility.
Between the right to protest and the right to free movement: The Zeta case goes beyond the question of the justification for building a collector. It opens up a fundamental dilemma: will Montenegro apply constitutional and convention standards that clearly distinguish protest from coercion, or will it tolerate a practice in which rights are exercised through blockades and mass pressure.
According to the Constitution of Montenegro and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the answer is clear: freedom of assembly ends where the disproportionate restriction of the rights of other citizens begins. A state that does not recognize or sanction this not only violates its positive obligations, but also undermines the very foundations of the rule of law.
If these patterns of institutional passivity continue, the issue of collectors will become secondary. The central question will be whether Montenegro remains a society in which conflicts are resolved by law - or by street precedents.
The author is a lawyer; he is the executive director of the Montenegrin Committee of Lawyers for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Bonus video:
