Prime Minister and members of the Government accountable to the parliament: MPA claims that the draft law is further aligned with the opinion of the Supreme Court

At the end of last month, the Government determined and proposed amendments to the Draft Law on the Government to the Parliament, which take into account the recommendations of the Venice Commission (VC) on the accountability of the executive branch to the Parliament and parliamentary oversight of the Code of Ethics, thus further harmonizing the Draft Law with its opinion.

This was the answer given to "Vijesti" by the Ministry of Public Administration (MPA) when asked whether that department had begun harmonizing the Bill with the guidelines from the new opinion given by the Commission at the plenary session on June 12th and 13th.

In its new opinion, the Venice Commission assessed that Montenegro had largely taken into account its previous recommendations regarding the Draft Law on the Government, but warned that the document was still not fully aligned with the Constitution, that it did not explicitly prescribe its accountability to the Parliament, and that it did not provide for parliamentary oversight of the Code of Ethics.

The law is in the parliamentary procedure, but the parliament has not responded to the list of when it will be on the agenda.

The Venice Commission emphasized that full harmonization of the law with the Constitution, namely with Articles 103 and 110, which relate to the election of the Government and the termination of its mandate, should be ensured.

"When it comes to recommendations relating to the explicit regulation of the Government's accountability to the Parliament and parliamentary oversight of the Code of Ethics, the Government, at its session held on 26 June 2026, determined and proposed to the Parliament amendments to the Draft Law on the Government, which take these recommendations into account. In this way, the Draft Law has already been further aligned with the opinion of the Venice Commission," the MPA replied.

Amendment 1 states that the law states that the Government, namely the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers and Ministers, are accountable for their work to the Parliament.

"The Venice Commission pointed out in its opinions that although the Constitution does not contain specific provisions on the accountability of the Government to the Parliament, the authority of the Parliament to elect and dismiss the Prime Minister and members of the Government, i.e., Deputy Prime Ministers and Ministers (with or without portfolio) implies that not only the Prime Minister, but also the entire Government is accountable to the Parliament," the explanatory memorandum to this amendment states, while the following three amendments delete the previous individual provisions on the accountability of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers and Ministers to the Parliament, or are aligned with Amendment 1.

In their June opinion, the "Venetians" pointed to an unfulfilled earlier recommendation to ensure the right of the Parliament to oversee the Government's Code of Ethics, "so that there would be a certain measure of legislative oversight over this sensitive issue."

"During discussions with government representatives, the Commission delegation was informed that the Code of Ethics will be adopted as a secondary legislation of the Government and published in the Official Gazette. The Commission understands that there are practical difficulties in subjecting an act adopted by the Government to parliamentary scrutiny, but recalls that the purpose of such scrutiny is to increase the transparency of the work of the executive branch," they stated.

The last, fifth amendment states that the Government Ethics Committee shall submit a report to the Parliament for adoption once a year. If the Parliament does not adopt the report, the mandate of the Ethics Committee shall terminate.

"By prescribing the obligation of the Ethics Committee to submit its annual report to the Parliament for adoption, parliamentary oversight of its work is ensured, especially if the Parliament does not adopt the report, in which case the mandate of the Ethics Committee will cease. In this way, the purpose of the above-mentioned oversight is achieved, which is aimed at citizens to provide them with better insight into the transparency of the work and practices of the Government," the amendment states in its explanation.

The Venice Commission also requested further clarification of the status of the Deputy Prime Minister, as Article 11, paragraph 3 of the Bill stipulates that “the Deputy Prime Minister may be a minister”. It recalls that the original draft stipulated that “as a rule” the Deputy Prime Minister is also a minister, and that it warned back in 2023 that such a formulation could raise doubts about the possibility of a Deputy Prime Minister without a ministerial function.

In the 2025 version, the text was amended and it was specified that the Deputy Prime Minister does not have to be a minister, which the Commission welcomed at the time.

"However, the new formulation 'may be a minister' reopens questions about whether it is possible to have a vice-president without a ministerial function and whether a vice-president can simultaneously be a minister without a portfolio. During the consultations, the Montenegrin authorities stated that such a solution has proven effective in practice. The Commission takes note of this explanation, but considers that further clarification is needed," the opinion states, assessing that this recommendation has been partially implemented.

Montenegro is among the few countries in the region that does not have a law on government. A working group for the preparation of this regulation was formed in the Ministry of Public Administration back in June 2022. The necessity of enacting the law was most talked about when the country was led by the Government Dritan Abazović (Civil Movement URA). After being overthrown in parliament (August 2022), she governed the country for a year and two months at full capacity (until the end of October 2023).

The Venice Commission has already issued two opinions on versions of the draft law on the Government - 2023 and 2025.

The draft law, unlike the January 2025 draft, does not limit the number of members of the Government, but only the number of ministers without portfolio. The 2025 draft states that the executive branch can have a maximum of 18 ministers for administrative areas, while the new document deletes that provision, stating only that the Government must have ministers for seven administrative areas: justice, defense, internal affairs, finance, foreign affairs, health, and public administration. These seven areas cannot be merged with others.

Despite the fact that part of the public has appealed that the powers of the executive branch, which has lost the confidence of the Parliament and is in a so-called technical mandate, must be limited by law, the Draft Law does not mention this. The novelty in the Draft Law is that at least 40 percent of the members of the executive branch should be from the underrepresented gender.

The law does not regulate the functioning of the Government whose mandate has expired.

Maras Dukaj's department emphasizes to "Vijesti" that the allegations that the Venice Commission negatively assessed the issue of the technical mandate of the executive branch are unfounded.

"Namely, the Draft Law on the Government, which is currently in the parliamentary procedure, does not regulate the functioning of the Government whose mandate has expired, because prescribing such issues would be contrary to the Constitution of Montenegro. It is precisely this approach that the Venice Commission welcomed," the ministry said.

Still no consequences when a candidate fails an integrity check

The Venice Commission also noted in its opinion that the law does not contain provisions on the consequences of a negative result of the integrity check of candidates for Prime Minister, members of the Government and officials of the executive branch. The Government did not propose such a provision, as the Constitution would need to be amended first.

"The interlocutors emphasized that such restrictions cannot be prescribed by law because there is no basis for them in the Constitution, and that preparations for constitutional reform in this area are underway," the "Venetians" opinion states.

“The Commission takes note of these explanations and acknowledges that without appropriate constitutional provisions it is difficult to legally regulate the consequences of a negative integrity check. It welcomes the announced constitutional reform and recalls that the issue of integrity checks is also being addressed by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO)”.

Therefore, the Commission recommended that, after implementing the appropriate constitutional reform, the steps to be taken in the event of negative integrity check results be specified in law as soon as possible.