The Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms has formed cases and will conduct an investigation following the complaint. Daniel Kalezić, an activist for LGBTIQ rights, regarding the actions of the municipalities of Budva and Pljevlja in relation to persons who have entered into same-sex life partnerships.
This was told to "Vijesti" yesterday by the Ombudsman's office.
Kalezić first addressed the Ombudsman on August 15th, due to, as he stated, the discriminatory exclusion of persons who entered into same-sex life partnerships from the Budva Municipality's housing loan repayment subsidy system.
In a second address, two days later, Kalezić filed a complaint about the discriminatory exclusion of persons who have entered into same-sex life partnerships from the Pljevlja Municipality's measure "Financial support for married couples in rural areas".
"Regarding both appeals, the Protector has formed cases, will conduct an investigation, the outcome of which the party will be notified in a timely manner," the Ombudsman's office told "Vijesti", noting that these specific cases are not urgent, and that requests for a statement will be sent to the competent authorities immediately after the end of the ongoing collective annual leave.
The Budva case
In his complaint against the Municipality of Budva for discrimination against LGBT people who have entered into same-sex life partnerships, Kalezić stated, among other things, that the municipality "explicitly recognizes married and unmarried couples as a young family and family household, while treating legally concluded same-sex life partnerships as if they did not exist."
"Such exclusion affects the conditions of participation, scoring, proving household status, and the possibility of continuing the subsidy after the death of the beneficiary," he stated.
On the same day, he sent an open letter to the Secretariat for Social Affairs, the President of the Municipality of Budva. Nikola Jovanovic and the President of the Budva Municipal Assembly Petar Odžić, with a request to remove the discriminatory provisions by the end of the working day on August 14th at the latest.
In response to Kalezić's address, the Secretariat for Social Affairs said, among other things, that the Decision on Subsidies was made based on the Law on Social Housing, and the public call was made in accordance with the Decision on Subsidies for Social Housing.
They also said that the Law on Social Housing stipulates that members of a family household are considered to be married and unmarried partners, children born in or out of wedlock, adopted or stepchildren, and other persons whom a citizen of Montenegro or his or her spouse is obliged to support under the Law.
In this regard, Kalezić said that such a response does not provide a legal explanation in relation to the subject of his address.
“My open letter and complaint to the Ombudsman were not based on the claim that the Municipality incorrectly transcribed Article 9 of the Law on Social Housing. The problem is that the Municipality of Budva and its bodies applied a sectoral law in isolation, ignoring the Constitution, the applicable Law on the Protection of Equality and Prohibition of Discrimination, the Law on Same-Sex Life Partnerships, and the binding standards of the European Convention on Human Rights.
According to him, the response does not address any of the key points from his address:
"Comparability of life partners with marital and common-law partners for the purposes of housing subsidies, specific less favourable treatment, protected grounds, existence or absence of a legitimate aim, proportionality of the difference in treatment, nor the specific consequences of not recognizing a life partner in the application, scoring and continuation of rights process," he stated.
As he stated, the Budva Municipality's decision "must not only be in line with the Law on Social Housing", but also with the Constitution, all applicable laws and ratified international treaties.
"Referring to compliance with one law does not constitute a response to the claim that the same act is contrary to another, later and directly applicable law regulating protection against discrimination," he said, adding that the Law on the Protection of Equality and Prohibition of Discrimination stipulates that in the event that another law prescribes a lesser scope of protection of rights than that prescribed by that law, this law will apply.
"Therefore, the law itself regulating the protection of equality determines how to proceed when another law provides a narrower scope of protection. In that case, it is not the narrower standard to the detriment of the discriminated group that is applied, but the standard from the Law on the Protection of Equality and Prohibition of Discrimination."
The Pljevlja case
After filing a complaint with the Ombudsman about the actions of the Budva Municipality, Kalezić also addressed the Ombudsman about the actions of the Pljevlja Municipality:
"I also filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against the Municipality of Pljevlja for excluding LGBT people in life partnerships from the financial support measure for couples in rural areas. The municipality recognizes married and unmarried couples, while it does not recognize legally registered life partnerships and extracts from the partnership register at all," he stated.
Kalezić's complaint relates to the agro-budget of the Municipality of Pljevlja for 2026, the public call that the Secretariat for Economy, through the Agricultural Service, published on May 14, and the prescribed application form.
As he said, the program and public call recognize "married couples" and "spouses" as beneficiaries.
"The municipality, however, accepted a certified statement of cohabitation as evidence, thereby extending support to unregistered heterosexual couples, while completely excluding same-sex life partnerships," Kalezić said.
As he said, "the Pljevlja agro-budget managed to make a certified statement more valuable than a state register."
"A heterosexual couple can prove their union by marriage or by declaring that they live together. A same-sex couple can conclude a life partnership before a competent authority, be registered in the public register in accordance with the law, but it does not exist before the Pljevlja Agricultural Service. This is what the illegal hierarchy of partner communities looks like when it is translated into a form and public money starts to be distributed," said Kalezić.
According to him, documentation shows that the same pattern has been repeated for at least three years.
"The invitations and forms from 2024, 2025 and 2026 recognize marriage and a certified statement of common-law partnership, while life partner, life partnership and extract from the partnership register are not recognized in any of those budget years," he said.
The Law on Same-Sex Life Partnership was passed on July 1, 2020. Some in the civil sector, while praising the adoption of the law, said at the time that the path to substantive equality was yet to come:
"I hope that the institutions will justify the trust and consistently implement this law, which will pave the way towards real equality," he said at the time. John Barac from the NGO LGBT Forum Progress.
Since then, in order to align with the Law on Same-Sex Life Partnerships, the necessity of harmonizing other regulations has also been pointed out.
In early July, the Government approved amendments to several laws, including, among others, draft laws amending the Law on Personal Names, amending the Law on the Central Population Register, amending the Law on Montenegrin Citizenship, amending the Law on Civil Registers, and amending the Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence Registers.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
