Milatović returned the Law on Internal Affairs

President Jakov Milatović returned the Law on Amendments to the Law on Internal Affairs, which was adopted by the Parliament of Montenegro on March 6, for reconsideration.

"I emphasize that I fully understand and strongly support the need for the law in question to provide normative prerequisites for the personnel improvement of the police system. I also support efforts aimed at decisively 'cleansing' the service of individuals whose actions violate the integrity of the police profession and obstruct the fight against crime. The fight for a professional and honorable police force is the most important prerequisite for the efficient functioning of the police service, but also the foundation of the stability of the entire state. The fact that part of the security sector was criminalized during the former regime further obliges us to carefully choose legal mechanisms for improving the system, respecting the Constitution of Montenegro and the democratic standards valid in EU countries," Milatović stated in the explanation sent to the Parliament.

He emphasizes that after reviewing the content of the adopted law, as well as numerous objections raised by the European Commission, the Association of Lawyers of Montenegro and relevant non-governmental organizations (MANS, Institute Alternative, HRA, etc.), it is his duty to point out the problematic nature of certain norms.

Below, we present the full explanation that Milatović sent to the Parliament:

Non-compliance with the EU acquis

The provisions of the adopted law are not aligned with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the EU Law Enforcement Directive (LED), as officially stated by the European Commission. Although the EC leaves the possibility of subsequent alignment until the conclusion of negotiations, from the perspective of the interests of Montenegrin citizens and the protection of their fundamental rights, it is crucial that the legal framework in this sensitive area is immediately harmonized with the highest European standards, and not that this process is postponed without providing clear reasons for doing so.

Incompatibility with the Constitution regarding the right to defense and the presumption of innocence

The introduction of "security impediment" as a direct basis for dismissal or permanent loss of police rank and police powers, without conducting disciplinary proceedings, represents administrative arbitrariness in which the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are limited (amended Article 162 of the Law on Internal Affairs). Namely, a police officer is denied the right to be informed of the reasons for determining security impediment and to express his/her opinion on it, which renders protection before the State Appeals Commission and competent courts meaningless, and reduces it exclusively to the possibility of challenging the decision on procedural grounds.

In this context, I would like to remind you that Article 25, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of Montenegro clearly stipulates that the right to defense and the presumption of innocence cannot be restricted, even in times of war or a state of emergency. I would also like to point out that Article 35 of the Constitution establishes that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a final court decision, and that Article 37 of the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to defense.

Disregard for the positions of the European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights (eg in the case of Fazliyski v. Bulgaria) has clearly taken the position that security reasons cannot be a reason for denying clear and complete reasoning and a fair trial.

Prejudging guilt and damage to the state budget

The law stipulates that the employment of a police officer shall be terminated by force of law, among other cases, when a security threat is established due to the issuance of an order to conduct an investigation or initiate criminal proceedings for certain criminal offenses. Such a solution directly suspends the role of the court because the Commission formed by the Minister of Internal Affairs, with its opinion, “judges” the police officer before the court does so with a final judgment, after the criminal proceedings have been conducted.

In practice, the question of state liability will inevitably arise in cases where a police officer loses his job in this manner, and later potentially proves his innocence in criminal proceedings. Such solutions will inevitably lead to high compensation claims that will fall on the shoulders of all citizens of Montenegro.

Contradictory solutions and weakening of the integrity of the Ministry of the Interior

Also questionable is the provision of the adopted law that allows an officer, who has been determined to be a security threat after permanently losing his police rank, to be assigned to other jobs in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, except for security supervision and security protection of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Article 143b of the Law on Internal Affairs, which was added by the adopted amendments).

Namely, if a person is definitely found to be in contact with criminal structures, he or she is unfit to work in any state body, especially in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, regardless of the type of job. The integrity of a civil servant is not a category that should be related exclusively to the police service, but also to all other employees within the public sector.

Problematic retroactivity

The application of new, stricter rules to disciplinary proceedings initiated under the old law directly threatens the principle of legal certainty and is questionable from the perspective of Article 147 of the Constitution of Montenegro, which prohibits the retroactive effect of laws and other regulations. Although the Constitution allows for retroactive effect when it is in the public interest, the exclusion of conducting disciplinary proceedings and the introduction of a completely new basis for termination of employment, after the proceedings have already begun, is contrary to the spirit of the cited article of the Constitution.

Lack of an inclusive approach in drafting laws

I believe that in this case, the conditions for not holding a public hearing, as prescribed in Article 52, paragraph 2 of the Law on State Administration, were not met. The explanation of the existence of "extraordinary and urgent circumstances" is refuted by the fact that the Bill has been in the parliamentary procedure for almost three months (since 17 December 2025). If urgency had really existed, the act would have been adopted immediately upon submission.

By denying the right of the professional public and citizens to provide suggestions and comments, the democratic principle of inclusiveness is violated. It is unjustifiable for decision-makers to ignore the arguments of their own citizens and relevant experts in this field.

By returning this law for reconsideration, I am enabling the proponent of the law to eliminate the aforementioned normative deficiencies and propose to the Parliament of Montenegro a law that will be in full compliance with the Constitution and European standards.

For the reasons stated, I believe that it is necessary for the Parliament of Montenegro to be re-determined according to the law in question."