A family from Podgorica has suspected for years that their very close relative was abused by a guardian appointed to him by the Bar Social Welfare Center (CSR) in 2008. This is a man who, due to his health condition, cannot take care of himself. The family believes that the guardian took money from his account, put him in debt with loans and neglected his treatment, that is, did not give him regular therapy. Because of all this, the brother of the man under guardianship has been contacting the Podgorica Social Welfare Center for years, which is responsible for this case after this man moved to the capital, and back in 2018, he requested that the guardianship of his brother be reviewed and verified.
Only when, at the initiative of the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro (the Protector), the Directorate for Inspection Affairs of the Department for Inspection of Social and Child Protection carried out an inspection in 2019, serious irregularities were discovered: the decision on guardianship did not contain a care plan, this man's valuable property was never listed or valued, the cadastre was not informed that he was a person under guardianship, nor was a decision made to hand over the property to the guardian for management. The Podgorica CSW never even kept basic records of this man and his property, which is mandatory under the Family Law.
Social worker and head of the Service for Adults and Elderly People at the Social Welfare Center in Podgorica Suzana Milović za Center for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG) said that she could not comment on the specific case, but stated that, according to the center's knowledge, there had been no abuse of property of persons under guardianship in the capital city and that they would be notified in such situations.
However, Milović states that "there were cases in which family members tried to withdraw money from the accounts of persons under guardianship, because for certain reasons the banks did not have records that they were persons under guardianship."
He says that in those situations they "reacted in time and prevented possible abuses."
According to documents in the possession of CIN-CG, cases of misuse of property of persons under guardianship are not isolated, but are part of a broader and systemic problem due to the way in which they and their property are taken care of in Montenegro.
Misuse of property is common and easy for people who have been deprived of legal capacity and placed under guardianship. CIN-CG's article on the misuse of legal capacity was published yesterday...
Extensive documentation obtained by CIN-CG shows that in almost all municipalities in the country, significant property of persons under guardianship is formally placed under the management of social work centers, but in practice it is not always managed in a legal, transparent and accountable manner. In numerous cases, this property is usurped (used by persons who do not have the legal right to it), without adequate decisions and supervision, or is outside the de facto control of social work centers. The centers often do not even have data on the value of the property, because they do not conduct an appraisal.
"Preparing property assessments for every person under guardianship who owns real estate or other valuable assets represents a significant financial burden for the social protection system," Milović said.
According to her, in practice, preparing a property valuation involves hiring certified appraisers, court experts, and extensive supporting documentation, which, according to market prices, often exceeds a thousand euros per person.
"These are significant costs for social work centers, especially in areas with a large number of people under guardianship who own real estate. It should be borne in mind that citizens' real estate is already recorded and assessed through the state tax system," says Milović.
NUMEROUS ABUSE OF PROPERTY OF PERSONS UNDER GUARDIANSHIP THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY
In Pljevlja alone, according to data obtained by CIN-CG, out of 242 registered properties of persons under guardianship that are now owned or managed and disposed of by various state institutions - as many as 31 properties, mostly apartments, have been usurped by persons who do not have the legal right to use these residential buildings. The remaining properties, mostly land and only a few auxiliary buildings and business premises, have not been used.
In 13 cases out of 31, the property was misused by family members of the deceased person under guardianship. In two cases, the Pljevlja CSW did not even determine who was using the property of the deceased person under guardianship, even though the items were valuable: one one-room apartment and one two-room apartment, although these apartments are now the property of the Pljevlja CSW.
In five cases, real estate, mostly one-room apartments, is used by people who never had a decision on the allocation of the apartment for temporary use. In one of those five cases, the property is even “inherited”; after the person who illegally used the apartment passed away, his relative continued to live there.
In six cases, persons who were given temporary use of real estate due to social need continued to use the apartments even after they had resolved their existential problems.
In one case from 2010, a person illegally moved into an apartment owned by the Pljevlja Social Welfare Center and did not, despite being asked to do so, vacate the apartment and return the keys. In doing so, she threw out the items she found there, according to documents that CIN-CG has seen. The value of these items is unknown, as movable property is not usually inventoried.
A vivid example of negligence and carelessness towards the property of persons under guardianship that was placed at the disposal of state institutions is the case of a prefabricated building in Pljevlja that was destroyed in 2023 due to a fire caused by the person to whom it was given for temporary use.
According to documents in the possession of CIN-CG, in Nikšić, the property of persons under guardianship has been usurped in at least six cases. In all cases, the property was given to persons who were beneficiaries of material security and who were no longer in a state of social need by the Nikšić Social Welfare Center.
In one case, the apartment is “used” by a family that does not live or work in Nikšić at all. In another case, a woman who was given a two-room apartment for temporary use continued to use it, even though she had since found a job and inherited the property after her parents died.
In practice, the property of persons under guardianship is often not protected, even when it comes to land. In one case, on a plot in the village of Bukovica, which now belongs to the Rožaje Social Welfare Center, beech trees were illegally cut down several times over the years. This is evident from the Record of Inspections conducted by the Inspection Department in 2022, which CIN-CG had access to.
In addition to abuses and weak controls by guardians, another problem is that property that is given to the management of social work centers is deteriorating, even though the state and social welfare institutions should maintain it. For example, a house in the Stara Varoš neighborhood in Podgorica has deteriorated due to lack of maintenance, as it is not systematically taken care of.
In Cetinje, three family houses, one apartment and several plots are not used at all and are very neglected, although the local CSR received them on the basis of a contract for the lifelong support of several people. The houses are dilapidated, but with minimal investment (painting, cleaning and minor repairs), some of them could be made usable and given to those who really need them. The apartment, located in the center of Cetinje, is unfurnished and untidy. This is evident from a letter that the CSR Cetinje sent to the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare in 2024, which CIN-CG had access to.
AUTHORITIES MAINLY CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO FRAUD
According to the Family Law, the social welfare center, as a guardianship authority, and the appointed guardians have clear and precise obligations when it comes to caring for the property of persons under guardianship. They are obliged to immediately, upon the establishment of guardianship, compile an inventory of all property of the ward, to safeguard, maintain and manage that property responsibly. The guardian may not dispose of the property, sell it, encumber it, lease it or otherwise reduce its value without the prior consent of the social welfare center, while the center is obliged to keep proper records of the property, monitor its use and regularly control the work of the guardian. In addition, the Family Law stipulates the obligation to submit periodic reports on property management, as well as the duty of the center to react in case of any suspicion of negligence, abuse or action contrary to the interests of the ward, including the dismissal of the guardian if irregularities are identified.
For the purposes of this research, CIN-CG contacted all social work centers in Montenegro and asked them a series of questions related to the way guardians work, control mechanisms, and care for the property of persons under guardianship.
Similar responses were received from most centers - that guardianships are implemented in accordance with the law and applicable regulations, that the property of persons under guardianship is monitored through internal procedures, and that so far they have not had any cases in which a guardian has been dismissed due to carelessness, negligence, or misuse of property.
Only the CSW responsible for Plav and Gusinje and the CSW for the municipalities of Bar and Ulcinj confirmed that they had had one case of a guardian being dismissed in the previous 10 years. The CSW for Plav and Gusinje did not specify why he was dismissed, while the CSW for Bar and Ulcinj told CIN-CG that the guardian was dismissed due to deteriorating health.
Such responses from the centers raise the question of whether the supervision system really works in practice and whether any irregularities are even recognized and reported.
Article 249 of the Criminal Code of Montenegro (CCM) clearly stipulates that anyone who represents another person's property interests or takes care of another person's property, and in doing so abuses the given authority in order to obtain a benefit for themselves or another person or to harm the person they are caring for, commits the criminal offense of breach of trust. Such an act is punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to three years. If the damage exceeds three thousand euros, the prison sentence can be up to six years, and if the damage exceeds 30 thousand euros, the perpetrator can be punished with imprisonment of up to eight years. It is particularly important that the CCM recognizes the increased responsibility of guardians and lawyers: if they are the ones who commit this offense, the prison sentences are significantly stricter - from six months to five years, when the damage exceeds three thousand euros and up to eight years, and over 30 thousand euros - up to 10 years.
In the case of the man under guardianship from the beginning of the article, the Ombudsman issued an opinion in 2019 that the actions of the institutions directly endangered his rights.
"In the 10-year period since the day of being placed under guardianship, the guardian submitted only one report on his work to the CSW Podgorica, in 2010, although he was obliged to do so once a year," states the opinion of the Protector, which CIN-CG had access to.
As can also be seen from the opinion of the Protector, before the inspection was carried out, the Podgorica CSW claimed to the Protector that they were doing everything legally, that the person under guardianship was satisfied, that the guardian was reporting everything properly and that there were no problems.
"It is worrying that the competent authority wants to leave the Protector convinced that it is acting in accordance with the regulations, and that the inspection authority subsequently establishes a series of irregularities... It is evident that only after the inspection indicated it, the CSW Podgorica took certain measures and actions aimed at protecting the rights and interests of the residents, as well as actions that, according to the regulations, it was obliged to take much earlier," the Protector's opinion also states.
Goran Laković, the father of a girl with autism, speaks to CIN-CG about the fear and uncertainty when thinking about her future, when her closest family members are no longer there.
"This is not an abstract fear, but a fear that stems from experience and knowledge of how the system works and how care is provided in practice for people who, like my daughter, are completely dependent on the protection and support of others," he says.
Over the years, Laković, who is otherwise active in the non-governmental association 'You Are Not Alone' that advocates for the rights of people with autism, has heard of numerous cases in which the property of people with disabilities, instead of being protected and preserved, has disappeared, been neglected or misused.
"This further worries me, that the system does not actually provide real guarantees of safety for those who remain alone in it."
“In practice, sometimes the procedure for deprivation of legal capacity is initiated due to deprivation of property and inheritance, impossibility of starting a marriage and family, placement in a closed institution, management of property through bank accounts, obtaining material benefits that are then only possible or easier to obtain, i.e. material gain, abuse of position, restriction of elections, and the like,” the executive director of the NGO Association of Youth with Disabilities of Montenegro (UMHCG) and activist told CIN-CG. Marina Vujacic.
Persons under guardianship are often left without real control over their property, instead of being provided with support in making specific decisions, as envisaged in the Deinstitutionalization Strategy for the period 2025-2028, which highlights the need for supported decision-making models, especially in areas such as property management.
The property of the most vulnerable usually remains without real protection, and institutions, although they claim to act in accordance with the law, in practice react only after pressure or intervention by the Protector and inspections.
Who protects the property of residents of nursing homes and the Komanski Most bridge?
Those who give their property to social welfare centers under a lifelong maintenance contract are most often vulnerable, mainly elderly people without close relatives, people with disabilities or chronic illnesses who need constant help and care, as well as people who live alone, in poverty or social isolation. These people are usually placed in a social institution, most often a nursing home.
The Ombudsman's Office explained to CIN-CG that the system of placement in social welfare institutions is full of legal loopholes and inconsistent practices. They pointed out that some beneficiaries are placed in nursing homes, without the decision of the social welfare center, most often through direct contracting with institutions, whereby the centers are often excluded from the procedure, although they are legally competent to decide on social welfare rights. In practice, this means that it is not checked whether the person actually agreed to the placement, whether someone made the decision on their behalf legally, which opens up serious room for abuse and leaves the most vulnerable without protection.
"It has been noted that all public institutions' homes have standard contracts for placement in the home, which are mostly signed by the home and the service user. However, incomplete contracts that are not signed by the user, but by a third party, are questionable and do not explain the reasons for which the contract is signed by that person, based on which act, nor does it contain the number of the decision by which that person is designated as a guardian," the Ombudsman's Institution told CIN-CG, among other things.
According to data from the Deinstitutionalization Strategy for the period from 2025 to 2028, the number of beneficiaries of seven nursing homes in Montenegro (in Risan, Pljevlja, Bijelo Polje, Podgorica, Nikšić and two homes in Danilovgrad) at the end of 2023 was 818, of which 344 people were placed in these homes through direct contracting.
Of the 818 users of nursing homes, by far the majority are those with mental and intellectual disabilities - 217 have mental disabilities, and 57 have intellectual disabilities.
In the Public Institution "Komanski most" in Podgorica, an institution for the accommodation of adults and elderly people with disabilities, in December 2023 there were 114 beneficiaries (12 young people, and 102 adults and elderly people).
Out of 114 beneficiaries, five of them had their parental rights extended by a decision of the competent basic court, 49 had a family member as their guardian, while 60 of them had no relatives or did not want or were not adequate to perform guardianship duties, so in these cases, professional workers from the competent social work centers were appointed as guardians.
It is interesting, however, that no family members, relatives or other significant persons visited as many as 38 people who were placed in the Public Institution "Komanski most" during 2023, nor did anyone take any interest in them during that period. All of these people are under the custody of the competent social work center as a guardianship authority and all of them were completely deprived of their legal capacity. By the end of 2023, only one beneficiary had their legal capacity partially restored, while for 61 beneficiaries, the proposal to restore legal capacity was rejected after the completion of the court process.
The Deinstitutionalization Strategy for the period from 2025 to 2028 of Montenegro highlights as problems in providing accommodation services for adults and elderly people and adults and elderly people with disabilities "the lack of active participation in the community, the lack of support programs for independent living or supported living, the lack of supported decision-making and an integrative approach".
Such practices not only question the legality of the work of competent institutions, but also open up space for systemic abuse of the property of the most vulnerable citizens, who, due to their health condition, are unable to protect themselves or control the way their property is used.
Bonus video:
