Acting on behalf of 14 municipal mayors, the Union of Municipalities of Montenegro has submitted requests for a constitutional review of certain provisions of the Law on Audiovisual Media Services and the Law on Forests. In addition to being inconsistent with two systemic laws, the contested provisions cause significant harm to municipal budgets and undermine the functioning of local governments. For this reason, the Union has requested that the Constitutional Court give these cases priority consideration.
The Law on Audiovisual Media Services prescribes mandatory annual allocations from municipal budgets, expressed as fixed percentages, for the financing of local public broadcasters. In addition to the mandatory allocations for television and radio broadcasters, the law provides that the amount must be increased by at least 5% if the broadcaster also publishes content through an online publication, and by at least 20% if more than 50% of the broadcaster's total annual television programming consists of original production. These provisions seriously undermine the constitutionally guaranteed autonomy of municipalities and the right to local self-government, including their right to regulate and manage certain public and other affairs under their own responsibility and in the interest of the local population. They also infringe upon municipalities' constitutional right to their own budgets, as guaranteed by the Constitution of Montenegro.
Although certain municipally owned companies provide services of public interest that constitute fundamental human rights—such as public water supply, waste management, and wastewater services—special laws governing these sectors do not prescribe the amounts that municipalities must allocate in their budgets for their financing, as doing so would infringe upon municipalities' right to fiscal autonomy. The Law on Audiovisual Media Services does precisely that, depriving municipalities of the freedom to independently determine priorities within their local policies and to plan and execute their budgets in accordance with their legal and contractual obligations, as well as local regulations, plans, and development programmes.
The contested provisions of the Law on Forests designate revenue generated from the use of forests and forest land as income of a state-owned company, which is required to pay a 20% fee to the State, with only a portion of that amount being transferred to municipalities. This is contrary to the provisions of the systemic Law on the Financing of Local Self-Government, under which the same revenue is classified as concession revenue derived from the use of assets of public interest granted by the State in accordance with the law. Under that law, 70% of such concession revenue must be allocated to the municipality in whose territory the assets are located. This inconsistency with the systemic law violates the fundamental constitutional principles of legal certainty, the rule of law, the unity of the legal system, the right to local self-government, and the constitutional right of municipalities to their own budgets.
Municipalities and their public services, including municipally owned companies and public institutions, are financed through local budgets, which municipalities plan and execute independently in accordance with their constitutionally guaranteed right to their own budgets, as well as the Law on Local Self-Government, the Law on the Financing of Local Self-Government, the Law on Budget and Fiscal Responsibility, and the relevant sector-specific legislation. The contested provisions of both laws also violate the principles of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, which provides that the powers conferred upon local authorities shall normally be full and exclusive and shall not be undermined or limited by another, central or regional authority.
As grounds for requesting priority consideration by the Constitutional Court, the Union of Municipalities argues that the implementation of the contested provisions of both laws is causing substantial and irreparable damage to municipal budgets across Montenegro. In some municipalities, the mandatory annual allocations for local public broadcasters exceed one million euros, while the amendments to the Law on Forests transform a stable source of municipal revenue into an unpredictable one, resulting in estimated annual losses of more than two million euros. These laws directly threaten the financial stability of municipalities—particularly those in the northern region of Montenegro—and significantly hinder the operation of municipal utility companies, thereby jeopardising the provision of essential public services such as water supply, waste management, and the maintenance of local infrastructure.
The erosion of municipalities' budgetary autonomy prevents them from fulfilling their statutory and contractual obligations within the prescribed deadlines, leading to numerous court and administrative proceedings initiated by citizens and legal entities. The additional costs arising from such litigation further deepen the crisis facing local governments and hinder the implementation of plans adopted by municipal assemblies. As a result, the constitutional and statutory functions of municipalities are placed at risk, as is the stability of local governments themselves, since mayors bear direct responsibility for any inability to provide essential services to citizens.
An urgent decision by the Constitutional Court on these requests would be of crucial importance for safeguarding the constitutional rights of local governments in Montenegro to autonomy and independent budgets. A favourable outcome would also confirm the alignment of Montenegro's legislation with the European Charter of Local Self-Government and would directly contribute to accelerating the country's European integration process.
The proposers of both requests are the Mayor of the Capital City, Prof. Dr. Saša Mujović, the President of the Municipality of Žabljak Radoš Žugić, President of the Municipality of Bar Dušan Raičević, the President of the Municipality of Rožaje Rahman Husović, the President of the Municipality of Pljevlja, dr. Dario Vraneš, the President of the Municipality of Plav, Nihad Canović, the President of the Municipality of Ulcinj Genci Nimanbegu, the President of the Municipality of Zeta Mihailo Asanović, the President of the Municipality of Petnjica Samir Agović, the President of the Municipality of Mojkovac Vesko Delić, the President of the Municipality of Bijelo Polje Petar Smolović, the President of the Municipality of Kotor Vladimir Jokić, the President of the Municipality of Danilovgrad Aleksandar Grgurović , and the President of the Municipality of Plužine Slobodan Delić.
We also recall that, in addition to the requests for constitutional review of these two laws, the Union of Municipalities has submitted a request for a constitutional review of the Law on Amendments to the Law on Social and Child Protection. This law follows a similar approach by reducing municipal budget revenues, thereby effectively undermining the ability of certain municipalities to perform their constitutional and statutory functions and, consequently, jeopardising citizens' right to effective local self-government.
