CCE: Institutions ignore every fifth recommendation of the Ombudsman

The Center for Civic Education (CCE), analyzing the annual reports of the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro, notes that a significant number of recommendations of this institution remain unimplemented - between 20 and 25 percent annually - and there is often no clear explanation as to why the competent authorities ignore them.

"This raises the question of the relationship of institutions towards the protection of human rights, but also the need for a wider public debate on the actual scope and authority of the institution of the Protector. According to the Law on the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms of Montenegro, after the procedure has been carried out, the Protector gives an opinion on whether a violation of rights has occurred, and when he determines a violation, he issues a recommendation on the measures that should be taken to eliminate it," the statement signed by Rozana Vuljaj, project assistant, states.

He adds that although the Ombudsman's recommendations are not enforceable like court decisions, they are important because, among other things, they are a test of the institutions' willingness to admit an oversight, correct the consequences of a violation of rights, or at least publicly and with arguments explain why they act differently.

The problem arises when recommendations remain ignored, without accountability and without an explanation for why they are not implemented. CCE does not assume that all decisions of the Protector are necessarily indisputable or that they should not be critically examined. On the contrary, we ourselves recently publicly criticized an opinion of the Protector that we considered to be inconsistent with human rights standards. However, it is a completely different matter when institutions systematically ignore recommendations, especially in cases that relate to the most vulnerable categories of society," she pointed out.

According to the Protector's Annual Report for 2025, a total of 381 recommendations were made to state bodies and institutions. Of these, 159 recommendations were complied with, 71 were not complied with, 118 recommendations are being implemented continuously, the deadline for implementation for 32 has not expired, while one recommendation was partially complied with.

"The Annual Report for 2024 recorded 451 recommendations, of which 110 were not complied with, or almost a quarter, while 127 were complied with, 30 partially, 12 are being implemented continuously, while the deadline for implementation for 58 has not expired. Among the unimplemented recommendations are those relating to children with developmental disabilities, persons with disabilities and citizens whose existential rights are threatened," it was announced.

As it turns out, for example, in 2024, the Ministry of Health and the then Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare did not act on the recommendation relating to improving interdepartmental cooperation in the exchange of information about children with disabilities.

"The same report also records the case of a woman with 90% disability who was unable to exercise her right to other people's care and assistance for a long period of time despite her serious health condition and endangered existence. In that case, the Public Institution Center for Social Work Podgorica and the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare did not comply with the Protector's recommendations regarding the assessment of the situation and ensuring the functioning of the social-medical commission. When institutions ignore such recommendations, the consequences are not procedural because they directly affect the dignity and existence of some citizens," she said.

"The problem of failure to act on the Protector's recommendations is not limited to the executive branch, as shown by the case of the Basic Court in Kotor, recorded in the Protector's Report for 2025. This is a case that related to the delay of civil proceedings and the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time, and the Protector's recommendation that the court urgently take procedural actions to conclude the main hearing and make a decision was not implemented. It is very bad when the judiciary ignores the recommendations of an institution with which, in practice, they should be a common shield for citizens from institutional inefficiency and violation of rights, as well as legal uncertainty," he adds.

Vuljaj points out that CCE believes that this requires a serious public debate on the position and effects of the work of the institution of the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms.

"The right to criticize or review the Ombudsman's decisions cannot automatically mean the right of institutions to ignore them without explanation and without consequences," he concludes.