The initiative challenges the compatibility of the above-mentioned provisions with the Constitution of Montenegro and ratified international treaties on the protection of human rights.
What is controversial in the ANB Law?
The contested provisions share the same key flaw: they allow interference with citizens’ privacy without prior judicial oversight and without effective independent safeguards.
Article 13 authorizes the ANB, without court approval, to access databases of state and local authorities, banks, healthcare institutions and other entities that keep records on citizens, including medical and financial documentation.
Article 18 introduces secret surveillance, observation and electronic searches in public places without prior court approval, thereby abolishing the previously existing requirement of judicial oversight for the use of audio and video surveillance.
Article 20 allows the collection of citizens’ location data through electronic communications without court approval, which is in direct contradiction with a 2014 decision of the Constitutional Court of Montenegro, which found the police power to act in this manner unconstitutional.
Article 21 formally introduces judicial oversight of secret surveillance measures, but uses imprecise legal standards, does not define what constitutes an urgent case allowing the ANB director to independently approve measures, and does not provide sufficient guarantees for citizens’ subsequent legal protection.
Violation of the Constitution and international standards
The initiative states that the contested provisions are not in compliance with Articles 40 and 42 of the Constitution of Montenegro, concerning the right to privacy and the confidentiality of communications, nor with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The same shortcomings in the law were previously pointed out by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in its concluding observations on Montenegro from May 2025, as well as by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy in a communication from September 2025. Recently, the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (ASK) also criticized, among other things, Article 21 of the ANB Law, which is challenged by this initiative. The European Court of Human Rights has emphasized in several judgments, including S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom, Roman Zakharov v. Russia and Grande Oriente d’Italia v. Italy, that secret surveillance measures must be accompanied by clear legal criteria, prior judicial oversight and effective legal remedies.
The ANB Law undermines elementary constitutional guarantees of the right to privacy. The right to privacy is not a privilege; it is a fundamental right of every citizen. That is why we believe it is necessary for the Constitutional Court to urgently assess the constitutionality of these provisions and protect citizens from possible abuses.
Request for priority decision-making
In addition to initiating proceedings, HRA requested that the Constitutional Court decide on this case as a priority, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court, bearing in mind that the matter concerns an issue of particular importance for the protection of citizens’ rights and freedoms, as well as for democratic oversight of the work of security services.
English