The Constitutional Court has initiated proceedings to review the constitutionality and legality of the tariff according to which the Central Bank of Montenegro calculates fees for its services

The Constitutional Court of Montenegro has initiated proceedings to assess the constitutionality and legality of the tariff according to which the Central Bank of Montenegro (CBCG) calculates fees for its services, as the question of their compliance with the Constitution and the law is well-founded.

As stated in the court's statement, the procedure was initiated by accepting the initiative of the institution of the Protector of Property and Legal Interests of Montenegro.

"The initiative challenges the decision of the Central Bank Council, which prescribed a fee for payment transactions through bank accounts abroad - 0,20 percent of the amount of funds, and a minimum of 10 euros. The Protector pointed out that commercial banks, for payment transactions through Central Bank accounts abroad, pay a fixed fee of one and a half euros per order, regardless of the amount of money transferred, while the Main State Treasury pays 0,10 percent of the value of each transaction," the Constitutional Court said in a statement.

The Ministry of Finance, as announced, stated in its statement that, according to the current tariff, commercial banks pay a fee of one and a half euros to the Central Bank for a transaction of one million euros, while that body pays one thousand euros, assessing that such a difference is not based on objective criteria.

"The CBCG disputed the allegations from the Protector's initiative, stating that the Council did not arbitrarily impose financial obligations on service users, but that when adopting the Decision on Tariffs, they took into account the complexity of the services they provide to a particular user," the Constitutional Court said in a statement.

They concluded that the question is well-founded, as stated in the Constitutional Court's decision, whether prescribing a percentage amount of compensation without clear criteria for the actual cost leads to the inconsistency of the contested act with the Constitution and the law.