The Constitutional Court of Montenegro has engaged two university professors from abroad to provide expert opinions in its review of the constitutionality and legality of the Central Bank of Montenegro’s tariff decision. The court said the opinions have been submitted and will be considered in its further analysis of a case with implications for fees charged to the state treasury and other payment-system users.
The court, Montenegro’s highest judicial instance in the case, has been seeking domestic specialists since April 2026. It approached the University of Montenegro’s Faculty of Economics and Faculty of Law, but neither was able to provide the requested assistance.
The Faculty of Economics told the court in late May that all 32 of its teaching staff holding academic titles had said they lacked the specialist credentials needed to prepare an opinion. The court had asked its expert commission to assess whether the tariff framework complied with relevant international economic and financial standards.
Its questions included whether it is customary to charge commercial banks and state bodies different fees for the same services, potentially placing them in unequal positions. The court also sought the faculty’s view on whether international financial standards supported the differences in charges.
The Faculty of Law responded in June that it could not comply. It declined to form a three-member working team after a call for expressions of interest and information about the engagement terms failed to attract enough academic staff, according to the court’s account.
Dispute centres on state payment costs
The case concerns charges set by the Central Bank of Montenegro (CBCG), led by Governor Irena Radović. The Ministry of Finance, headed by Novica Vuković, initiated a review on 13 May 2025 through the Office of the Protector of Property and Legal Interests of Montenegro.
The ministry challenged fees for international payments made through CBCG accounts, which were set at 0.20% of the transaction value, with a minimum charge of 10 euros. In domestic payments, commercial banks pay 1.50 euros for an order in the RTGS system regardless of the amount transferred, while the Main State Treasury, or the Ministry of Finance, pays a proportional fee of 0.10% of each order.
In its initiative, the ministry argued that the proportional charge meant the Main State Treasury paid considerably more than commercial banks on larger orders. It said the tariff model undermined the efficiency of public finances and gave the impression that the treasury was being subjected to discriminatory and unjustified additional financial costs.
During the proceedings, CBCG amended its tariff decision twice and reduced some fees. It then asked the court to halt the case, arguing that the challenged regulation was no longer in force. The court dismissed the ministry’s initiative on that basis, but three days later opened a new review of the tariffs on its own initiative.
That ex officio proceeding remains underway. The court has said the CBCG Council’s new tariff decision still does not set sufficient and measurable criteria for determining fees for central bank services. It also found that the revised decision and additional explanation had not made clear either the criteria or the actual costs that justified different treatment of the Main State Treasury and other payment-system users.
The court noted that European Union directives and regulations provide recommendations on calculating fees, while responsibility for observing constitutional principles at national level rests with the CBCG Council. It said it had used Article 46 of the Law on the Constitutional Court as the legal basis for seeking specialist advice; the provision allows the court to request an expert opinion in an appropriate field under its rules of procedure.
Expert costs covered by court budget
Article 46 also gives engaged experts the right to remuneration and reimbursement of expenses. The court said funding for the professors’ engagement was available in its budget under the consulting services allocation; the amount paid was not specified.
CBCG Deputy Governor Zorica Kalezić has said fees for executing payment transactions on behalf of the state had not changed for 20 years, despite changes in financial markets and higher operating costs. She said the central bank’s approach reflected responsible management of public funds.
The two foreign professors’ opinions are now part of the material the court will examine as it continues its own-initiative review. No decision on the constitutionality and legality of the tariff rules was specified.
