Montenegro: Opinion on Draft Legal Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament

Warsaw, 23 July 2026 Opinion-Nr.: ELE-MNE/589/2026 OPINION ON DRAFT LEGAL AMENDMENTS TO THE LAW ON ELECTION OF COUNCILLORS AND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT MONTENEGRO This Opinion has benefited from contributions made by Elissavet Karagiannidou, Senior Legal and Electoral Reform Expert. Based on an unofficial English translation of the Draft Law provided by Parliament of Montenegro. OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Ul. Miodowa 10, PL-00-251 Warsaw Office: +48 22 520 06 00, Fax: +48 22 520 0605 www.legislationline.org

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY RECOMMENDATION This Opinion analyses the draft amendments to the Law of Montenegro on the Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament (hereinafter - the “Election Law”) submitted by the Parliament of Montenegro for ODIHR review in May 2026 (hereinafter - the May 2026 draft amendments). The Parliament requested the review of the draft law to assess how the amendments address prior ODIHR recommendations, in particular those issued in the ODIHR Opinion on the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament and the Law on Election of the President (2 June 2025, hereinafter the 2025 ODIHR Opinion) , as well as their compliance with international standards and good practice for democratic elections. Therefore, the scope of the current Opinion is limited to the review of the provisions of the draft amendments. The current opinion shall be read in conjunction with the 2025 ODIHR Opinion, the ODIHR Opinion on the Laws Governing Voter Registration (10 June 2025), the ODIHR Urgent Opinion on the New Law of Montenegro on Financing Political Entities and Election Campaigns of July 2025 (10 June 2026), as well as the Final Opinion on the Law of Montenegro on Financing of Political Entities and Election Campaigns (9 October 2024). Other recommendations from ODIHR election observation activities and the assessment as to the status of their implementation are referenced in this Opinion. As indicated by the authorities, the draft amendments were developed within the scope of electoral reform required within the EU accession process, which was initiated in July 2025 with the adoption of the law on the amendments to the Election Law. The May 2026 draft amendments, which are the subject of this review, concern the rules on determination of residence requirements for voting rights eligibility; candidate lists representing national minorities; candidate list nomination through the collection of voters’ signatures; definition, duration and rules for media coverage of election campaigns ; accessibility measures for persons with disabilities, publication of opinion polls, election dispute resolution, including regarding final election results, the regulation of recounts and the annulment of voting results. The 2026 Draft Amendments can be generally considered a positive step to address prior ODIHR recommendations, and some considerable improvements were made, including related to candidate nomination and registration, the campaign, including online, and effective dispute resolution. Despite these improvements, several important issues remain, including those related to passive and active suffrage rights, regulation and conduct of the campaign, including online. Therefore, further efforts are required to bring the legal framework in closer compliance with international standards and good practice pertaining to democratic elections. More specifically, ODIHR makes the following recommendations to further strengthen the Law in accordance with international standards, OSCE commitments and good practice: A. To review the two- year residency requirement to align it with international standards and relevant case law. C onsideration could be given to introducing measures that could constitute interim steps towards the eventual abolition of the residence requirement. B. Regarding Nomination of Candidate Lists representing National Minorities:

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 3 Consideration could be given to reviewing the requirement to recognize the autonomy of associations and political parties to determine their own candidates, as well as the right of individuals not to disclose their affiliation with a national minority. To establish clear and objective criteria for determining eligibility for minority-related electoral benefits, consideration could be given to consulting with representatives of national minorities, while ensuring that such assessments do not unduly delay the electoral process or undermine the right of individuals to self-identification. C. To facilitate the signature verification process, consideration could be given to providing for a submission of an electronic copy of signature lists to enable preliminary machine identification of duplicate entries, and ensure that the collection and verification of supporting signatures is conducted in compliance with data protection requirements. D. Regarding the election campaign: To clarify the concepts of “indirect presentation” and “acting in their name and for their benefit”, including the criteria for determining when activities constitute regulated third- party campaigning rather than protected independent political expression or advocacy. To introduce a definition of “third parties” as well as harmonize the third-party related provisions with the Law on Financing Political Entities and Election Campaigns. E. To clarify the relationship between the general provisions governing the electoral campaign and the specific rules on media coverage, including by expressly specifying which campaign activities may be undertaken before the certification of electoral lists and which media-related rights and obligations apply only after certification. F. To facilitate consistent implementation and reduce uncertainty for electoral contestants, media service providers and social media platforms, campaigning online should be further regulated, including financial disclosure requirements and a mandate and structure for oversight. G. To ensure full consistency between the terminology and scope of hate speech provisions, including by clarifying the applicable threshold and avoiding overlapping or divergent interpretations that could affect legal certainty, foreseeability, and freedom of expression. These and additional Recommendations, are included throughout the text of this Opinion, highlighted in bold. As part of its mandate to assist OSCE participating States in implementing their OSCE human dimension commitments, ODIHR reviews, upon request, draft and existing laws to assess their compliance with international human rights standards and OSCE commitments and provides concrete recommendations for improvement.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 5 II. SCOPE OF THE OPINION ........................................................... 5 III. LEGAL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................. 6 1. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS AND OSCE HUMAN DIMENSION COMMITMENTS ............................................................................................. 6 2. BACKGROUND AND GENERAL COMMENTS ...................................................................... 7 3. COMMENTS REGARDING THE CHANGES PROPOSED BY THE 2026 DRAFT LAW ON AMENDMENTS TO THE LAW ON ELECTION OF COUNCILLORS AND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT ...................................................................................................................... 8 3.1. Residence Requirements for Voting Rights and Criteria for Resident Status ........... 8 3.2. Nomination of Candidate Lists representing National Minorities ......................... 12 3.3. Voters’ Supporting Signatures for Candidate Nomination .................................... 16 3.4. Definition and Duration of the Election Campaign ............................................... 17 3.5. Media Coverage of Elections and Campaign Silence ............................................ 18 3.6. Oversight of Media Coverage of the Campaign ..................................................... 21 3.7. Freedom of Expression in the Election Campaign ................................................. 22 3.8. Misuse of State Resources ...................................................................................... 23 3.9. Participation of Persons with Disabilities ............................................................. 23 3.10. Opinion Polls ......................................................................................................... 25 3.11. Annulment of Voting and Provisions on Recount of Votes ..................................... 26 3.12. Election Dispute Resolution and Sanctions for Irregularities ................................ 27 ANNEX: Draft Amendments to the Law on the Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 5 I. INTRODUCTION 1. On 14 May 2026, the Vice President of the Parliament of Montenegro requested the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (hereinafter “ODIHR”) to provide a legal review of the draft Law on Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament (hereinafter “the Draft Amendments”) as to how they address prior ODIHR recommendations, and specifically those contained in the 2025 ODIHR Opinion on the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament and the Law on Election of the President of Montenegro. 2. On 9 June 2026, ODIHR confirmed the Office’s readiness to provide the legal review on the compliance of these draft amendments with international human rights standards and OSCE human dimension commitments. 3. The current opinion shall be read in conjunction with the 2025 ODIHR Opinion, as well as the ODIHR Opinion on the Laws Governing Voter Registration (10 June 2025), the ODIHR Urgent Opinion on the New Law of Montenegro on Financing Political Entities and Election Campaigns of July 2025 (10 June 2026), as well as the Final Opinion on the Law of Montenegro on Financing of Political Entities and Election Campaigns (9 October 2024). 1 Other recommendations from ODIHR election observation activities and the assessment as to the status of their implementation are referenced in this Opinion. 2 4. This Opinion was prepared in response to the above request. ODIHR conducted this assessment within its mandate to assist the OSCE participating States in the implementation of their OSCE commitments. 3 II. SCOPE OF THE OPINION 5. In accordance with the formal request for legal review, the scope of this Opinion covers the May 2026 Law on Draft Amendments submitted. Thus limited, the Opinion does not constitute a full and comprehensive review of the entire legal and institutional framework governing the electoral process in Montenegro. In particular, this Opinion does not encompass a comprehensive assess ment of the amendments introduced into the Law in July 2025, as these amendments were not subject to a legal review request from the Montenegrin authorities. 1 Available at the Legal Opinions and Comments, particular ODIHR, Opinion on the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament and the Law on Election of the President of Montenegro, 2 June 2025, ODIHR , Opinion on Laws Governing Voter Registration in Montenegro, 2 June 2025, ODIHR Opinion on the Law of Montenegro on Political Parties, 25 April 2025). See also ODIHR, Final Opinion on the Law of Montenegro on Financing of Political Entities and Election Campaigns, 9 October 2024 and ODIHR, Urgent Opinion on the New Law of Montenegro on Financing of Political Entities and Election Campaigns, 10 June 2026. 2 See all previous ODIHR election observation reports on Montenegro. In paragraph 25 of the 1999 OSCE Istanbul Document, OSCE participating States committed themselves “to follow up promptly the ODIHR’s election assessment and recommendations”. 3 See, in particular, 1998 Oslo Ministerial Declaration , MC.DOC/1/98, stating “Expression should be given to support for the enhancement of OSCE electoral assistance work and the strengthening of internal procedures to devise remedies against infringements of electoral rules, with the participating States invited to provide the ODIHR in a timely fashion with draft electoral laws and draft amendments to these laws for review so that possible comments can be taken into account in the legislative process”. See also 1999 Istanbul Document which states: “… appreciate the role of the ODIHR in assisting countries to develop electoral legislation in keeping with OSCE principles and commitments”.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 6 6. The Opinion assesses how the draft amendments address the recommendations included in the ODIHR Opinion on the Law on the Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament published on 2 June 2025, as well as – where appropriate (for example, with respect to the recommendations on voter registration) – from other abovementioned Opinions . 7. The Opinion raises key issues and provides indications of areas of concern. In the interest of conciseness, it focuses on the provisions that require further amendments or improvements. The Opinion shall not be read as a default positive assessment of other provisions of the Draft Amendments, unless specifically indicated. The ensuing legal analysis is based on international and regional human rights and rule of law obligations , as well as relevant OSCE human dimension commitments. 8. The Opinion highlights, as appropriate, good practice from other OSCE participating States. When referring to national legislation, ODIHR does not advocate for any specific country model but rather focuses on providing clear information about applicable international standards while illustrating how they are implemented in practice in certain national laws. Any country example should be approached with caution since it cannot necessarily be replicated in another country and always has to be considered in light of the broader national institutional and legal framework, as well as country context and political culture. 9. Moreover, in accordance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 4 (hereinafter “CEDAW”) and the 2004 OSCE Action Plan for the Promotion of Gender Equality 5 and commitments to mainstream gender into OSCE activities, programmes and projects, the Opinion integrates, as appropriate, a gender and diversity perspectives. 10. This Opinion is based on an unofficial English translation of the Draft Amendments provided by the Parliament of Montenegro, which is attached to this document as an Annex. Errors from translation may result. Should the Opinion be translated in another language, the English version shall prevail. 11. In view of the above, ODIHR would like to stress that this Opinion does not prevent ODIHR from formulating additional written or oral recommendations or comments on respective subject matters in Montenegro in the future. III. LEGAL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS AND OSCE HUMAN DIMENSION COMMITMENTS 12. For the relevant international human rights standards and OSCE commitments reference is made to Section III.1 of the ODIHR Opinion on the Law of Montenegro on Election of Councillors and the Members of Parliament of 2 June 2025. 4 The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (hereinafter “CEDAW”), adopted by General Assembly resolution 34/180 on 18 December 1979. Montenegro acceded to this Convention on 23 October 2006. 5 See OSCE Action Plan for the Promotion of Gender Equality, adopted by Decision No. 14/04, MC.DEC/14/04 (2004), para. 32.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 7 2. BACKGROUND AND GENERAL COMMENTS 13. Elections in Montenegro are primarily regulated by the 2007 Constitution, the 1998 Law on Elections of Councillors and Members of Parliament (hereinafter “Election Law”), the 2007 Law on the Election of the President, the 2020 Law on Financing of Political Subjects and Election Campaigns, and the 2014 Law on Voter Register. 6 Other relevant legislation includes the 2015 Law on Registers for Permanent and Temporary Residence, the 2008 Law on Montenegrin Citizenship, the 2007 Law on Identity Card, the 2002 Law on Media, and the Law on Political Parties. 14. The Election Law was adopted in 1998 and was amended numerous times since, including following a Constitutional Court decision. Most recently, the Election Law was amended on 10 July 2025, within the framework of the reforms required by the European Union (EU) accession process. Those amendments prescribed a single day for holding municipal elections, clarified the timeline and procedures for holding early municipal elections, introduced measures to depoliticize and professionalize election administration, broadened the election administration hierarchical oversight mechanism, introduced new transparency requirements in its work, enhanced financial resources and administrative support; enhanced gender quota in candidate lists from 30 to 40 per cent and introduced a new placement requirements in the candidate lists, as well as provided the transitional provisions regulating the timeline for the implementation of the changes. These amendments were not assessed by the ODIHR for their compliance with international standards, OSCE commitments, good electoral practice, and prior ODIHR recommendations. 15. In line with the Constitution, the amendment of the Election Law requires a two-thirds majority, and the electoral reform has been stalled several times throughout the process due to lack of political consensus. In 2018, a parliamentary Committee for a Comprehensive Reform of Electoral and Other Legislation was established and functioned until 2019, with multiple attempts to re-establish it and cessations of activities in 2021, 2023, and most recently in 2025. The last composition of the Committee also included representatives from civil society, who could participate in its sessions and submit proposals. The July 2025 amendments were a result of the work of the Committee. The mandate of the parliamentary C ommittee expired a t the end of 2025, and the decision on its extension has not been adopted by the parliament, negatively impacting participatory work on electoral reform. 16. The Draft Amendments currently under review were not drafted by a parliamentary Committee, and the accompanying Explanatory Note did not provide information as to the procedural aspects of its drafting, including whether public consultations were conducted. 7 6 Montenegro is party to the major international and regional instruments on democratic elections, this includes the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), 2006 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), 2003 Convention against Corruption and 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. It is a member of the Council of Europe Venice Commission and Group of States against Corruption (GRECO). 7 Paragraph 5.8 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document states that “legislation, adopted at the end of a public procedure […] that being the condition for their applicability”. Paragraph 8 of the 1996 UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) General Comment no 25 to Article 25 of the 1966 ICCPR states that “Citizens also take part in the conduct of public affairs by exerting influence through public debate [...] with their representatives”. The 2025 Venice Commission Updated Rule of Law Checklist refers to “the meaningful opportunity for the public to provide input” and influence the outcome as “an essential aspect of the democratic society”. See the 2024 ODIHR Guidelines on Democratic Lawmaking for Better Laws, para. 23.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 8 17. As indicated by the authorities, the D raft Amendments are developed within the scope of electoral reform required within the EU accession process, which was initiated with the adoption of the July 2025 amendments . 18. It is important to acknowledge that several provisions of the new Law reflect positive developments and address, fully or partially, several recommendations made by ODIHR in its 2025 Opinion. The 2026 Draft Amendments fully address recommendations 10, 11, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 30, partially address recommendations 6, 9 27, 28, 31 while Recommendations 1, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, although within the scope of the amendments, remain outstanding. Other recommendations pertain to areas outside the Draft Amendments and were not assessed within this Opinion (specifically recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 32). Therefore, further efforts are required to bring the legal framework in closer compliance with international standards and good practice pertaining to democratic elections. 19. In addition, timely adoption of secondary legislation is essential to facilitate and clarify the application and ensure effective implementation of the legal framework. 8 The new Central Election Commission (hereinafter “the CEC”) to be created in line with the 2025 amendments has the mandate to develop subsidiary election- related framework. 3. COMMENTS REGARDING THE CHANGES PROPOSED BY THE 2026 DRAFT LAW ON AMENDMENTS TO THE LAW ON ELECTION OF COUNCILLORS AND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT 3.1. Residence Requirements for Voting Rights and Criteria for Resident Status 20. The right to vote is currently regulated by the Constitution, the Election Law and the Law on Voter Register. The Constitution stipulates that the right to vote and to be elected is granted to “citizens with permanent residence in Montenegro for at least two years”. 9 Article 2.1 of the Election Law regulates that the voting rights shall be granted to “ citizens who are included in the voter register in accordance with the law governing the voters’ register”, while Article 11 of the same law refers to “voter[s] who have turned 18 years of age, with permanent residence in Montenegro for no less than two years prior to the Election Day”. The Draft Amendments change the regulation of residency requirement for voting rights by adding a new paragraph to Article 11 which stipulates that residence for electoral purposes shall be determined on the basis of the legal residence requirements and additional objective criteria relating to tax residency, housing, social insurance, employment or economic activity, and actual residence in Montenegro. 21. While international law does not preclude residence requirements as such, any such restrictions must pursue a legitimate aim, be reasonable and proportionate, and should not result in the arbitrary or undue restriction of the right to vote. International standards and comparative practice also demonstrate an increasing recognition of the electoral rights of citizens residing abroad. 22. Article 25 of the 1966 UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stipulates that “[e]very citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions 8 Section II.2.a of the 2001 Council of Europe’s European Commission for Democracy through Law (hereinafter “the Venice Commission”) Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters (Code of Good Practice) states that “[a]part from rules on technical matters and detail – which may be included in regulations of the executive – rules of electoral law must have at least the rank of a statute.” 9 Currently, municipal elections are regulated in the Election Law and the Law on Local Self-Government. The 2025 ODIHR Opinion noted that “The residence requirement is more restrictive for municipal elections, as it is prescribed in conjunction with permanent residence in the respective municipality where a voter votes or stands for election.”

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 9 mentioned in Article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (b) [t]o vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections […]”. Paragraph 10 of the UN HRC General Comment No. 25 to Article 25 states that “ [t]he right to vote at elections […] must be established by law and may be subject only to reasonable restrictions, such as setting a minimum age limit for the right to vote. […]”, while paragraph 11 provides a legitimate residency requirement pertaining to voter registration, and prescribes that “States must take effective measures to ensure that all persons entitled to vote are able to exercise that right. Where registration of voters is required, it should be facilitated and obstacles to such registration should not be imposed. If residence requirements apply to registration, they must be reasonable […]”. 10 Moreover, the 2002 Venice Commission Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters (Code of Good Practice) states that “a length of residence requirement may be imposed on nationals solely for local or regional election” and that “residence in this case means habitual residence” of up to six months, it also stated that “[t]he right to vote and to be elected may be accorded to citizens residing abroad” . 11 23. While in the earlier case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), cases regarding the limitations on the right to vote based on residency criteria were considered manifestly ill- founded, in later cases the Court examined the cases on merits but considered residence criterion compatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. Some cases addressed the proportionality of the limitations (for example, a fifteen-year period when voters who had emigrated maintained the eligibility to vote in national elections and the availability of procedures allowing to reinstate the voting rights upon the return). 12 In a more recent case, while acknowledging that “the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the State in this area still remains a wide one”, the Court acknowledged the “ there is a growing awareness at European level of the problems posed by migration in terms of political participation in the countries of origin and residence”, and “a clear trend, in the law and practice of the member States, to allow non- residents to vote”, based on the regulation in a significant majority of States in favour of an unrestricted right of access. The Court, however, decided that it was not possible to establish that “the laws and practices of member States have reached the stage where a common approach or consensus in favour of recognising an unlimited right to vote for non- residents can be identified […] as to the extent of States’ obligations to enable non- residents to exercise the right to vote” , with the caveat that “the matter may need to be kept under review in so far as attitudes in European democratic society evolve” . 13 24. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a number of resolutions and recommendations that discuss the implications of intensifying migration trends on the 10 See Article 25 in conjunction with Article 2 of the 1966 UN ICCPR: “Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” Paragraph 11 of the 1996 UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) General Comment No. 25 to the ICCPR provides that “if residence requirements apply to registration, they must be reasonable”. 11 See Paragraph I.1.1.c.iii of the Code of Good Practice. See also Venice Commission, Abolition of Restrictions on the Right to Vote in General Elections (CDL-AD (2005) 012 and CDL-AD (2005) 011, 3 -4 December 2005. 12 See the Commission decisions X. and Others v. Belgium (dec.), application no. 1065/61, 18 September 1961, Yearbook Vol. 4, p. 269; X. v. the United Kingdom, application no. 7566/76, (dec.), 11 December 1976, Decisions and Reports (D.R.) 9, p. 121; p. 137; X. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), application no. 8873/80, 13 May 1982, D.R. 28, p. 99; Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy (dec.), application no. 23450/94, 15 September 1997, unpublished; and Luksch v. Germany (dec.), application no. 35385/97, 21 May 1997, D.R. 89B, p. 175; on the need for a general legal rule see Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), application. no. 31981/96; 7 September 1999; Doyle v. the United Kingdom (dec.), app. No. 30158/06, 6 February 2007; Shindler v. the United Kingdom, (Merits and Just Satisfaction), application no. 19840/09, 7 May 2013, para. 105; on proportionality of measures: Doyle v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 2007; Shindler v. the United Kingdom, 2013, para. 108 (cited above). 13 See Shindler v. the United Kingdom, 2013, paras. 109-115.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 10 right to vote. 14 In these documents, the Parliamentary Assembly stated that “as a rule, priority should be given to granting effective, free and equal electoral rights to the highest possible number of citizens, without regard to their ethnic origin, health, status as members of the military or criminal record. Due regard should be given to the voting rights of citizens living abroad” and that “[ g]iven the importance of the right to vote in a democratic society, the member countries of the Council of Europe should enable their citizens living abroad to vote during national elections […]. They should take appropriate measures to facilitate the exercise of such voting rights as much as possible”, and called on Member States to “(b) grant electoral rights to all their citizens (nationals), without imposing residency requirements; (c) facilitate the exercise of expatriates’ electoral rights […]”. 15 25. The constitutional and legislative framework links voting rights to permanent residence, while the relevant legislation employs different terminology and does not clearly define the relationship between permanent residence, habitual residence and actual residence in practice. The recommendation to harmonize the relevant terminology has not been addressed in the Draft Amendments and therefore remains valid. 26. More fundamentally, the two- year permanent residence requirement constitutes a substantive restriction on the right to vote. As highlighted in the 2025 ODIHR Opinion, “to ensure compliance with international standards on democratic elections, the legal two-year permanent residence requirement for the right to vote should be abolished from the legal framework for national elections. For any residence requirements remaining in place, clear and objective criteria for determining when a citizen has habitual residence in the country, such as submission of tax declarations or the ownership of property could be introduced.” The proposed amendments to Article 11 partially address the previous ODIHR recommendation by introducing clearer and more objective criteria for determining residence status. W hile the introduction of somewhat clearer criteria represents a positive step , it does not address the fundamental concern related to residency, and recommendation No. 6 of the 2025 ODIHR Opinion therefore remains applicable. 27. ODIHR takes note that abolishing the two- year residency requirement would require a constitutional amendment. At the same time, should a constitutional amendment not presently be feasible, consideration could be given to introducing measures that could constitute interim steps towards the eventual abolition of the residence requirement. This could be achieved by introducing more proportionate rules governing the retention of voting rights by citizens residing abroad, reducing the waiting period for regaining voting rights following the naturalization procedures, or replacing the 14 These include, inter alia, Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Recommendation 1410 (1999), 26 May 1999, On links between Europeans living abroad and their countries of origin, Recommendation 1500 (2001) on the participation of immigrants and foreign residents in political life in the Council of Europe member states, Recommendation 1650 (2004), 2 March 2004, On links between Europeans living abroad and their countries of origin; Resolution 1459 (2005) on abolition of restrictions on the right to vote; Recommendation 1714 (2005) , 24 June 2005, On abolition of restrictions on the right to vote; Resolution 1591 (2007), 2 October 2007, On distance voting; Resolution 1617 (2008), 25 June 2008, on the State of Democracy in Europe - Specific challenges facing European democracies: the case of diversity and migration, and related Recommendation 1839 (2008); Resolution 1618 (2008), 25 June 2008, On the State of democracy in Europe: measures to improve the democratic participation of migrants and related Recommendation 1840 (2008), 25 June 2008; Resolution 1696 (2009), 20 November 2009, On engaging European diasporas : the need for governmental and intergovernmental responses and Recommendation 1890 (2009); and Resolution 1897 (2012), 3 October 2012, On ensuring greater democracy in elections. 15 See paragraphs 3 and 7, as well as recommendations (b) and (c), Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1459 (2005) On abolition of restrictions on the right to vote, 24 June 2005.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 11 fixed residency requirement with regular residency registration or verification procedures based on clear and objective criteria . 16 RECOMMENDATION A To review the two-year residency requirement to align it with international standards and relevant case law. In the interim period, consideration could be given to introduce proportionate rules governing the retention of voting rights by citizens residing abroad, reducing the waiting period for regaining voting rights following naturalization, or replacing the fixed residency requirement with regular residency registration or verification procedures based on clear and objective criteria. 28. The 2025 ODIHR Opinion also provides a comparative overview of the regulation of residence requirements in OSCE participating States, including different approaches to safeguarding the voting rights of residing abroad, out-of-country voting in diplomatic representations, as well as postal or internet voting. In such cases, states may maintain separate voter registers for out-of-country voters, often based on active voter registration, enabling the exercise of voting rights without requir ing permanent residence in the country. 17 29. Newly introduced specific criteria for determination of the legally required residence in Montenegro are objective and are used in several OSCE participating states. It requires to assess permanent residence based on the data on 1) the filing of tax returns as a tax resident; 2) ownership, lease or another legal title to immovable property used for housing; 3) the exercise of rights from mandatory social and health insurance; 4) an established employment relationship, or the performance of an economic or professional activity, that is in the relevant local self-government unit; 5) actual uninterrupted stay for a period of at least six months in a year. However, more precision is needed to ensure consistent and foreseeable application in practice. The Draft Amendments would benefit from further clarification as to whether these criteria must be applied cumulatively or alternatively, and whether a specific duration is required for some of the prescribed criteria. For example, it should be clarified whether a single tax declaration or a temporary employment contract submitted within the preceding two years would suffice, or whether continuous or repeated evidence throughout the relevant period is required, and whether another reference period is envisaged. The Draft Law shall be reviewed to eliminate any ambiguities regarding the exclusive or cumulative use of residence criteria, as well as the duration of the assessment for compliance with the criteria. The clarification and implementation of 16 See, inter alia, the Shindler v. the United Kingdom , 2013, (cited above), where the fifteen-year entitlement to maintain voting rights after emigration were considered a proportionate measure, while maintaining a shorter period for regaining franchise upon the return to the country and naturalization. It is to be noted that the United Kingdom (UK), the respondent State in the cited case, eliminated residency requirements completely in 2022 (in force since 2024), opting to allowing voters that maintain registration in the UK but residing abroad to vote in the UK elections, with the requirement to renew the in-country registration every 3 years. 17 Paragraph 34 of the 2011 Venice Commission Report on Out -of-Country Voting (CDL-AD (2011)022). Section I.1.c of Code of Good Practice states “[q]uite a few states grant their nationals living abroad the right to vote and even to be elected. This practice can lead to abuse in some special cases e.g. where nationality is granted on an ethnic basis. Registration could take place where a voter has his or her secondary residence, if he or she resides there regularly and it appears, for example, on local tax payments; the voter must not then of course be registered where he or she has his or her principal address.”

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 12 these criteria should be guided by the principles of proportionality and legal certainty. 30. Moreover, the proposed amendments explicitly state that the new criteria are introduced in addition to the conditions prescribed by the law governing the registers of residence and temporary residence. As the introduced criteria determine a resident’s status, they need to be harmonized with the conditions prescribed by the laws governing the registers of residence and temporary residence. Such harmonization alone, however, would not be sufficient to ensure the consistent application of the new framework. Effective implementation of the proposed amendments also requires safeguards against arbitrary, selective or discriminatory application . Particular attention in this respect should be given to developing subsidiary regulation and other related legislation to prevent malpractices and ensure uniform implementation. 31. Lastly, ODIHR notes that the Draft Amendments do not expressly provide for an effective and timely legal remedy against decisions affecting voter registration or the exercise of voting rights resulting from the application of the residence criteria. Ensuring the availability of judicial review is an important safeguard against disproportionate restrictions of electoral rights. 18 It is recommended to ensure that, in line with international standards, effective, accessible and timely judicial review is available in respect of decisions affecting voter registration or voting rights resulting from the application of the residence criteria. Such a remedy should enable affected persons to challenge these decisions and, where appropriate, ensure the prompt reinstatement of their voting rights. 3.2. Nomination of Candidate Lists representing National Minorities 32. The Election Law provides a set of preferential measures for candidate lists representing national minorities, including a lower requirement for the number of nominated candidates per list, and a decreased number of voters’ support signatures for nomination. These preferential terms, inter alia , constitute affirmative measures to enhance political participation and representation of national minorities. 19 As per the law and its implementation practice, members of national minorities are also included and elected with several mainstream political parties and candidate lists, as some lists are multi- ethnic. 20 33. ODIHR has previously noted that the law does not prescribe any criteria for granting a candidate list the status of a national minority list. ODIHR Recommendation No. 9 proposed “to provide in the election legislation clear and objective criteria for granting a candidate list the status of a national minority list, and to ensure objective assessment of eligibility and safeguard against misuse. It is recommended to stipulate in the Election 18 Article 2 of the 1966 ICCPR states that “a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity”. Paragraph II.3.3.d. of Code of Good Practice states that “The appeal body must have authority in particular over such matters as the right to vote – including electoral registers – and eligibility” 19 Paragraph 35 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document states that “[t]he participating States will respect the right of persons belonging to national minorities to effective participation in public affairs, including participation in the affairs relating to the protection and promotion of the identity of such minorities”. 20 See the ODIHR Final Report on Parliamentary Elections in Montenegro, 30 August 2020, p. 18 . See also paragraph 150 of the 2024 Council of Europe, Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Opinion on the Fourth Cycle Report by Montenegro. The 1999 OSCE HCNM Lund Recommendations on Effective Participation of National Minorities in Public Life, (p. 24) discuss the international standards and OSCE commitments, promoting and facilitating inclusive political parties as follows: “While full respect for equal rights and non- discrimination will reduce or eliminate the demand and need for political parties formed on the basis of ethnic ties, in some situations such communal parties may be the only hope for effective representation of specific interests and, thus, for effective participation. Of course, parties may be formed on other bases, e.g. regional interests. Ideally, parties should be open and should cut across narrow ethnic issues; thus, mainstream parties should seek to include members of minorities to reduce the need or desire for ethnic parties.”

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 13 Law that, in case a list does not qualify for the status of national minority, it should be assessed as to its compliance with the registration criteria without the preferential terms.” As also highlighted in previous observation reports, the absence of such criteria led in 2020 and 2023 to disputes over the S tate Election Commission’s (SEC) decisions to deny registration to lists claiming to represent national minorities. Several ODIHR Election Observation Misson (EOM) interlocutors raised concerns that the provisions are open to abuse by political actors, in order to gain representation in parliament and access to public funding under easier conditions, while emphasizing that, although special temporary measures to support the electoral participation of national minorities are commendable, clear eligibility criteria should be established to ensure an objective assessment of such lists and safeguard against misuse. 21 34. International standards recommend the adoption of temporary affirmative measures, wh ere necessary to ensure the effective participation of national minorities in public affairs. 22 Namely, “[s]pecial measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved ”. 23 Furthermore, the ECtHR has recognized a wide margin of appreciation of the States to determine the approach to the regulation on the recognition of national minorities . 24 At the same time, good practice calls for such measures to be implemented without excessive interference by the State with the internal statutory regulation of political parties. 25 35. The proposed amendment to A rticle 38 introduces criteria to determine whether a candidate list shall be considered as representing “ a minority people” or “a minority national community.” Namely, a candidate list must cumulatively meet the following conditions: 1) that it is submitted by a political party, a coalition of political parties, or a group of voters which, in its name, statute or programme, clearly and unequivocally identifies itself with a specific minority people or minority national community; and 2) that at least two thirds of the candidates on the list are members of the minority people or minority national community with which the electoral list identifies itself. The proposed amendment stipulates that the competent election commission determines whether a list meets the legal criteria to be considered a national minority list. 21 See the ODIHR Final Report on Parliamentary Elections in Montenegro, 30 August 2020, p. 10 and the related recommendation; the ODIHR Final Report on Parliamentary Elections in Montenegro, 11 June 2023, p. 25. 22 Article 4.2 of the 1992 UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National Minorities ; paragraph 35 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document; 1999 OSCE Lund Recommendations on the Effective Participation of National Minorities in Public and Political Life; Articles 4 and 15 of the 1995 Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM); Section I.2.4 of the Code of Good Practice . 23 Article 1.4 of the 1965 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). 24 See para 67 of the ECtHR judgment in the case Gorzelik v. Poland [GC], application no. 44158/98, 17 February 2004, which states “practice regarding official recognition by States of national, ethnic or other minorities within their population varies from country to country or even within countries. The choice as to what form such recognition should take and whether it should be implemented through international treaties or bilateral agreements or incorporated into the Constitution or a special statute must, by the nature of things, be left largely to the State concerned, as it will depend on particular national circumstances.”, in paragraph 90 it states that “Referring to the hallmarks of a “democratic society”, the Court has attached particular importance to pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. In that context it has held that, although individual interests must on occasion be subordinated to those of a group, democracy does not simply mean that the views of the majority must always prevail: a balance must be achieved which ensures the fair and proper treatment of minorities and avoids any abuse of a dominant position (see Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, application nos. 7601/76 7806/77, 13 August 1981, para 63, and Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], application nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, para 112). 25 See the 2020 ODIHR and Venice Commission Joint Guidelines on Political Party Regulation , paras. 134, 138, 140.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 14 36. While the criteria are clear and have been subject to the ECtHR’s assessments, 26 it is to be noted that the assessment of the status based on the name of a political party or a candidate list on its own, as allowing the selective application of either the party’s name or statutory regulation, may result in a merely declaratory assessment. In this respect, it may be legitimate for the national authorities to assess the statutory documents of associations, including whether their programmatic or statutory goals are to promote the rights and interests of the respective national minority, as well as their activities pursued in achieving those objectives. The Draft Amendments aim to address the consideration by explicit requirement that the criterion is not applied exclusively, and stipulate an additional prerequisite in paragraph 3(2) to be applied “cumulatively”. 37. In addition, the Draft Amendments stipulate that the criterion in paragraph 3(1) is to be applied in conjunction with membership in the candidates list (paragraph 3), requiring “at least two thirds of the candidates on the list are members of the minority people or minority national community with which the electoral list identifies itself”. It must be noted that in line with international standards, belonging to a national community is a matter of self- determination and self-identification, and there are no clear and objective criteria for determining whether an individual is a member of a national minority , while assumptions should not be made based on individuals’ names, surnames or other personal data. 27 The legislation does not contain a general requirement for individuals to declare their national identity and/ or membership in a community. 38. However, the proposed measure in para 3(2) on its own merit, and taken in conjunction with the criterion in para 3(1) stipulated for groups of voters as a candidate nominating entity, appears difficult to implement, and contains a risk of discriminatory and arbitrary practices, at odds with OSCE commitments and international standards . 28 Consideration could be given to reviewing this requirement to recognize the autonomy of associations and political parties to determine their own candidates, as well as the right of individuals not to disclose their affiliation with a national minority. 39. Positively, the proposed amendment to Article 38 also states that a candidate list may be registered under the general rules if it does not meet the legal criteria to be registered as representing a national minority. Moreover, the proposed amendment to Article 94 on the allocation of mandates in parliament also prescribes that lists which do not meet the legal requirements to be registered as representing national minorities participate in the allocation of mandates under the general rules, namely without the lower thresholds and the preferential terms for national minority lists. These amendments are in line with the second part of ODIHR Recommendation N.9. 40. The Council of Europe’s Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, in its 2024 Fourth Opinion on the Report from Montenegro, reiterated that affirmative measures provided for the Croat community are not applicable to the Roma community, despite their comparable magnitudes. The 26 See ECtHR judgment in the case Gorzelik v. Poland [GC], application no. 44158/98. 27 Paragraph 32 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document states “To belong to a national minority is a matter of a person’s individual choice and no disadvantage may arise from the exercise of such choice”. Article 3 of the FCNM stipulates “Every person belonging to a national minority shall have the right freely to choose to be treated or not to be treated as such and no disadvantage shall result from this choice.” See also paragraph 2.4.(c) of the Code of Good Practice states that “Neither candidates nor voters must find themselves obliged to reveal their membership of a national minority”. See the ODIHR Opinion on the Law of Political Parties of Montenegro, June 2025. 28 See, inter alia, the 2020 ODIHR and Venice Commission Joint Guidelines on Political Party Regulations , principle 9 on Internal Democracy in light of its interpretation with respect to the selection of candidates in consideration of Article 7 of FCNM and Articles 2 and 4 of the ICERD, in paras. 161 - 165. The 2001 OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM) Guidelines to Assist National Minority Participation in the Electoral Process apply the existence of a genuine link between the elected representatives and the electorate within the national minorities or communities as an assessment criterion for electoral systems.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 15 Advisory Committee called on the authorities “to extend affirmative action concerning electoral thresholds for numerically small national minorities, in particular to the Roma, so as to ensure the principle of equal treatment is upheld”. 29 Prior ODIHR observations, including in the 2025 Legal Opinion, also underline this concern, and the recommendation is therefore reiterated. 30 41. The introduction of a requirement to determine whether a political party or candidate list represents a national minority raises questions regarding the criteria and mechanisms for verifying such affiliation. In the absence of clear and objective procedures for assessing national minority status, decisions by the competent authorities may become inconsistent and could lead to delays in the electoral process, particularly where such decisions are subject to legal challenge. Therefore, consideration could be g iven to consulting with national minority groups to establish feasible and objective criteria for determining eligibility for minority-related electoral benefits, while ensuring that such assessments do not unduly delay the electoral process or undermine the right of individuals to self-identification and self-determination. 42. While it is a matter of a separate law, alternatively, the national minority status of a political party could be determined at the stage of party registration. 31 The ECtHR recognized that the analysis of the statutory documents and their assessment as to genuine compliance with the declared status of national minority and related interventions for the statutory corrections were a legitimate exercise of the State’s margin of appreciation aimed at ensuring that the preferential rules, including those granting electoral benefits, are not misused. 32 Therefore, the analysis of the statutory regulations in the determination of compliance with national minority status can be considered in the registration of political parties. States must ensure that such a registration requirement does not lead to discrimination. The ODIHR and Venice Commission Guidelines on Political Party Regulation state that the analysis of the statutory documents for registration “cannot be used to discriminate against the formation of parties that espouse unpopular ideas. ” It is recommended to ensure that the legal criteria for determining a political party's national minority status are streamlined and harmonized throughout all relevant legislation, and are conducive to the realization of the right to participate in political life, subject to judicial oversight. 33 29 See paragraphs 155 and 156 of the 2024 Opinion (cited above). 30 See ODIHR Election Observation Mission, Final Report on the Early Parliamentary Elections, Montenegro, 11 June 2023, pages 24- 25. 31 The Law on Political Parties currently in force does not prescribe criteria for the assessment whether an applicant party genuinely represents a national minority, which leaves space for misuse in order to qualify for preferential terms. 32 In paragraph 103 of the Gorzelik v Poland judgment (CG, cited above), the ECtHR stated that “imposing as a condition for registration of the association that the reference to an “organisation of a national minority” be removed from […]the memorandum of association was no more than the legitimate exercise by the Polish courts of their power to control the lawfulness of this instrument, including the power to refuse any ambiguous or misleading clause liable to lead to an abuse of the law – in the event, a clause which would create for the association and its members a capacity, which could not be impeded, to enjoy electoral privileges to which they were not entitled. Consequently, the Court accepts that the national authorities, and in particular the national courts, did not overstep their margin of appreciation in considering that there was a pressing social need, at the moment of registration, to regulate the free choice of associations to call themselves an “organisation of a national minority”, in order to protect the existing democratic institutions and election procedures in Poland and thereby, in Convention terms, prevent disorder and protect the rights of others”, as “the refusal was not a comprehensive, unconditional one directed against the cultural and practical objectives that the association wished to pursue, but was based solely on the mention, in the memorandum of association, of a specific appellation for the association” (para. 105). 33 See Gorzelik v. Poland, GC, cited above, inter alia, paras. 96, as to the discussion on the criteria applicable to assess the national authorities’ decisions. Article 4 of the 1965 Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) states that “[t]he Parties undertake to adopt, where necessary, adequate measures in order to promote, in all areas of economic, social, political and cultural life, full and effective equality between persons belonging to a national minority and those belonging to the majority. In this respect, they shall take due account of the specific conditions of the persons belonging to national minorities.”

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 16 RECOMMENDATION B 1. To ensure respect for the autonomy of associations and political parties in determining their own candidates, as well as the right of individuals not to disclose their affiliation with a national minority, consideration could be given to reviewing this requirement. 2. To establish clear and objective criteria for determining eligibility for minority- related electoral benefits, consideration could be given to consulting with representatives of national minorities, while ensuring that such assessments do not unduly delay the electoral process or undermine the right of individuals to self-identification. 3.3. Voters’ Supporting Signatures for Candidate Nomination 43. Pursuant to Article 42 of the Election Law, to be registered to stand at parliamentary elections, candidate lists require support signatures of at least 0.8 per cent of the number of voters registered nationwide in the previous elections or, to run for municipal elections, 0.8 per cent of the voters registered in the respective municipality. The required number of voter support signatures is in line with international good practice. 34 However, at odds with international good practice and long -standing ODIHR recommendations, the Election Law limits voter’s support to only one list (Article 44 of the Election Law). 35 Positively, the proposed amendment to Article 44 stipulates that a voter may sign in support of one or more candidate lists. The proposed amendment to A rticle 44 fully addresses ODIHR Recommendation N.11, and is in line with international good practice, as it promotes political pluralism and supports the freedom of expression by allowing voters to express support for multiple political options. 44. Pursuant to the proposed amendment to Article 44, election commissions will be required to verify that a voter’s signature is used only once within one candidate list, in order to ensure compliance with the legally prescribed minimum number of supporting signatures. While the Election Law mandates the CEC (for parliamentary elections) or the respective Municipal Election Commissions (MEC) (for local elections) to verify the supporting signatures, it does not establish clear statutory criteria and procedures for such verification, as recommended by the good practice. 36 Although the Election Law mandates the CEC to regulate the procedure for candidate list nomination and registration, the absence of clear legal provisions governing signature verification may result in excessive discretion being granted to the CEC. 37 It is recommended to provide clear and objective criteria for signature verification in the law that would safeguard against selective or discriminatory application. 34 Section I.1.1.3.ii of the Code of Good Practice. 35 Paragraph 196 of the 2020 ODIHR and Venice Commission Joint Guidelines on Political Party Regulation states that “a requirement that a citizen be allowed to sign in support of only one party should be avoided, as such a regulation would affect his/her right to freedom of association”. 36 See paragraph 197 of the 2020 ODIHR and Venice Commission Joint Guidelines on Political Party Regulation . 37 Paragraph I.1.3.iii of the Code of Good Practice states “the signature verification procedure must follow clear rules, particularly with regard to deadlines, and be applied to all the signatures rather than just a sample”; paragraph I.1.1.3. iv. states: “The checking process must in principle cover all signatures; however, once it has been established beyond doubt that the requisite number of signatures has been collected, the remaining signatures need not be checked.” See paragraph 196 of the 2020 ODIHR and Venice Commission Joint Guidelines on Political Party Regulation .

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 17 45. In several OSCE participating states, voters’ supporting signatures may be provided either hand-written in hard-copies, sometimes drafted in the presence of and certified by a notary or a judge, or through government e-platforms. The latter method safeguards against the use of voters’ data and supporting signatures without their consent, but requires cybersecurity and data protection measures. In case of hand-written signatures, signature verification can be conducted by contacting selected voters to confirm they signed in support of a candidate list. 38 To facilitate the signature verification process, consideration could be given to providing for the submission of an electronic copy of signature lists to enable preliminary machine identification of duplicate entries. To ensure that the collection and verification of supporting signatures is conducted in compliance with data protection requirements, the regulatory framework should establish clear safeguards governing the processing, access to, and use of voters’ personal data, while ensuring transparency and consistency in the verification process. RECOMMENDATION C To facilitate signature verification process, consideration could be given to providing for a submission of an electronic copy of signature lists to enable preliminary machine identification of duplicate entries. To ensure that the collection and verification of supporting signatures is conducted in compliance with data protection requirements, the regulatory framework should establish clear safeguards governing the processing, access to, and use of voters’ personal data, while ensuring transparency and consistency in the verification process. 3.4. Definition and Duration of the Election Campaign 46. The proposed new paragraph 2 of A rticle 50 prescribes that the election campaign starts from the call of elections and lasts until the announcement of preliminary results . According to the same Article, campaign “ shall be considered to be the set of activities of submitters of electoral lists, candidates and third parties acting in their name and for their benefit, by which the electoral programme, ideas, candidates and the electoral list are directly or indirectly presented.” It further defines campaign activities as “public gatherings, panels and promotional events, media and political advertising in all forms of media, advertising and presentation in electronic publications and on social networks, the distribution of promotional materials, and other forms of public presentation.” Explicitly defining both the start and end of an electoral campaign is a positive development, as it is intended to ensure a level playing field, equal opportunities among contestants, and access to campaign-related rights and benefits. 47. In addition, t he revised definition is more comprehensive, particularly as it expressly includes third parties acting in the name and for the benefit of electoral contestants. The proposed amendment also aims to align the Election Law with the campaign finance regulations prescribed by the 2025 Law on Financing of Political Entities and Election Campaigns. As earlier stated by ODIHR, provisions regulating third- party campaigning during elections […] is a positive development as this addresses a significant gap previously identified in the legal framework. 39 38 Verification of support signatures by graphological has proven an ineffective and controversial practice in several OSCE participating states, for instance, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. 39 See Urgent Opinion on the new Law of Montenegro on Financing of Political Entities and Election Campaigns of July 2025, para. 47.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 18 48. Regulating the campaign duration, combined with more elaborated campaign definition addresses an earlier ODIHR recommendation to provide a clear and uniform definition of the election campaign and its duration. 40 Nevertheless, some elements of the definition could be further refined to improve legal certainty. In particular, the concepts of “ indirect presentation” and “acting in their name and for their benefit” could benefit from further clarification, to ensure a clear distinction between regulated campaign activities and independent political expression or advocacy. Consideration could be given to clarifying the concepts of “indirect presentation” and “acting in their name and for their benefit”, including the criteria for determining when activities constitute regulated third-party campaigning rather than protected independent political expression or advocacy. 49. In addition, as the concept of third- party campaign has now been introduced, the Election Law could also benefit from the introduction of a definition of “third parties” as well as harmonizing the third -party related provisions with the Law on Financing Political Entities and Election Campaigns. 50. In addition, as paragraph 1 of Article 50 currently maintains the definition of ‘election campaign’ as activities of submitters of electoral lists from “the day of the registration of the electoral list to the end of election campaigning”, the proposed amendments are contradictory, and would also require amending paragraph 1 of Article 50. 41 It is recommended to review paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 50 to ensure terminological consistency. 51. The Proposed Amendments list various types of campaign activities, namely public gatherings, panels and promotional events, media and political advertising in all forms of media, advertising and presentation in electronic publications and on social networks, the distribution of promotional materials and other forms of public presentation. The proposed amendment aims to align the Election Law with the 2025 Law on Financing of Political Entities and Election Campaigns, which would be streamlined once the term inology within paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 50 is clarified. 42 RECOMMENDATION D 1. To clarify the concepts of “indirect presentation” and “acting in their name and for their benefit”, including the criteria for determining when activities constitute regulated third- party campaigning rather than protected independent political expression or advocacy. 2. To introduce a definition of “third parties” as well as harmonize the third-party related provisions with the Law on Financing Political Entities and Election Campaigns. 3.5. Media Coverage of Elections and Campaign Silence 52. The Draft Amendments introduce a more structured regulation of election campaigning by distinguishing between the general concept of the electoral campaign and specific rules 40 See 2025 ODIHR Opinion on the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament and the Law on Election of the President of Montenegro, Recommendation No. 17. 41 Articles 51a, 52, 53, 53a, 56, 58, 60 and 62 are all applicable “during the campaign period”. However, it is unclear whether they refer to the period from the call of elections, from the registration of a candidate list, or of the consolidated candidate list. 42 See Article 16 of the Law on Financing of Political Entities and Election Campaigns from July 2025.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 19 governing media coverage. The amendments introduce a new Article 64a, which separately regulates media coverage during the electoral campaign and codifies the election silence. The provision establishes that the right to media coverage begins upon the certification of an electoral list and ends 24 hours before election day, when the election silence commences. 53. These amendments address, to some extent, ODIHR Recommendation No. 18, which called for campaign regulations to be restructured and streamlined to improve their coherence, consistency, and clarity, including by distinguishing rules applicable to media campaigning from those governing other forms of campaigning. They also modernize the legal framework by expressly recognizing campaigning through electronic publications and social media. 54. Nevertheless, some aspects could be further clarified. While Article 50 defines the electoral campaign as commencing on the day elections are called, Article 64a provides that the right to media coverage begins only after the certification of electoral lists. Although this distinction is not inconsistent with international good practice, particularly if understood as limiting regulated media access and paid political advertising to officially confirmed contestants, it would benefit from explicit clarification in the law to avoid uncertainty regarding the campaign activities that may be undertaken before candidate certification. Further clarifying the relationship between the general campaign provisions and the specific media rules would also strengthen the coherence of the legal framework and reduce the potential for inconsistent interpretation. It is recommended to clarify the relationship between the general provisions governing the electoral campaign and the specific rules on media coverage, including by expressly specifying which campaign activities may be undertaken before the certification of electoral lists and which media-related rights and obligations apply only after certification. RECOMMENDATION E To clarify the relationship between the general provisions governing the electoral campaign and the specific rules on media coverage, including by expressly specifying which campaign activities may be undertaken before the certification of electoral lists and which media-related rights and obligations apply only after certification. 55. The amendments also address ODIHR Recommendation No. 19 concerning the regulation of the campaign silence. More specifically, the newly introduced Article 64a substantially addresses this recommendation by prescribing a 24- hour campaign silence and expressly prohibiting political advertising in traditional and online media, media presentation of candidates, in-person campaigning, public gatherings, the distribution of promotional materials, and electronic communications calling on voters to support particular candidates or electoral lists. The amendment also provides welcome clarification that campaign content published online before the commencement of the silence may remain available, provided that it is not further promoted or advertised during the silence period. 56. Paragraph 3(2) of Article 64a exempts from the campaign silence only “reporting on the electoral process to the minimum extent necessary to inform the public”. While the purpose of campaign silence is to protect voters from campaign messaging immediately before voting, it should not unnecessarily restrict neutral journalistic reporting or the dissemination of factual information of public interest. The qualification “to the minimum extent necessary” is imprecise and may be interpreted restrictively, potentially discouraging legitimate reporting on election- day developments, voter turnout, polling

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 20 procedures, or other matters of public importance. 43 It is recommended to revise Article 64a to clearly permit neutral, factual and non-partisan reporting on the electoral process and other matters of public importance during the campaign silence, while maintaining the prohibition on campaign- related content and political promotion. 57. As already noted, the proposed amendments to Articles 50 and 64a expressly extend the campaign rules to online campaigning, including political advertising in electronic publications and on social networks. This is a welcome development, as it acknowledges the increasing importance of digital campaigning and clarifies that campaign and campaign silence rules also apply in the online environment. However, the draft amendments do not further specify how these provisions should apply in practice, including with regard to paid online political advertising, responsibility for third- party content, or the enforcement of campaign silence on online platforms. 58. Over the last few years, international standards have developed to address issues pertaining to the online space, including online political advertising and election campaigning. 44 Relevant standards include the Council of Europe Recommendations and the EU regulation on transparency of political advertising. 45 The international standards prescribe that it is necessary to ensure the balance between regulation and enforcement, on one hand, and the freedoms of expression. Additionally, certain issues pertain to financial transparency and accountability. Moreover, to ensure transparency and accountability, national legislation needs to prescribe and regulate the scope of the national institutions ' mandate to communicate and coordinate with the social media platforms. To facilitate consistent implementation, reduce uncertainty for electoral contestants, media service providers and social media platforms , campaigning online should be further regulated, including financial disclosure requirements and a mandate and structure for oversight. RECOMMENDATION F To facilitate consistent implementation, reduce uncertainty for electoral contestants, media service providers and social media platforms, campaigning online should be further regulated, including financial disclosure r equirements and a mandate and structure for oversight. 43 See campaign silence definition in the 2012 ODIHR Handbook on Media Monitoring for Election Observation Missions, (p. 34). See paragraph 12 of the 1996 UNHRC General Comment No. 25 that states that “Freedom of expression, assembly and association are essential conditions for the effective exercise of the right to vote and must be fully protected.” Paragraph 39 of the 2011 UNHRC General Comment No. 34 on Article 19 of the ICCPR “Freedoms of opinion and expression” states that “Every restriction [during election campaigns] should be compatible with paragraph 3. However, it may be legitimate for a state party to restrict political polling imminently preceding an election in order to maintain the integrity of the electoral process”. 44 See for instance CM/Rec (2022)12 Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member States on electoral communication and media coverage of election campaigns. 45 Also, not legally binding outside of the European Union, see the Regulation 2024/900 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2024 on the transparency and targeting of political advertising, for reference .

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 21 3.6. Oversight of M edia C overage of the C ampaign 59. The 2025 ODIHR Opinion assessed the measures for transparency, control and oversight over the media compliance with the rules on election campaign coverage under the Election Law in force as insufficient, due to the lack of comprehensive regulation on the type of media subject to disclosure, absence of a system of dissuasive sanctions, and the problematic institutional design of the oversight entity, which was assessed as insufficient to ensure impartiality, independence, and institutional stability. The regulation in force was also found to fall short from international standards due to undue limitations on editorial freedoms of the public media, and failing to ensure independence of the public broadcaster. 46 Subsequently, the R ecommendation N.21, inter alia, proposed to mandate the Agency for Electronic Media to oversee the compliance of broadcast media with election-related provisions, while providing it with sufficient sanctioning and enforcement powers, and prescribing in the law a graduated system of effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for broadcasters breaching the law. 60. The proposed amendments to A rticle 64c mandate the Agency for Audiovisual Media Services (AEM) to monitor the compliance of broadcast media and electronic publications with all election-related media coverage regulations, in addition to those included in the Election Law. Pursuant to the proposal, during the election campaign, the AEM is mandated to monitor the election and campaign programmes and content, to publish weekly reports and consolidated reports after the elections. 61. The amendments prescribe a graduated system of sanctions. Namely, in case the AEM identifies violations by media, it is mandated to impose warnings and public reprimands, to order the publication of a correction, denial or special announcement in the same programme slot and to the same extent; to order removal or suspension of publication of unlawful content; to temporarily ban the publication of political advertising until the end of the electoral process. The amendments also prescribe that the fines must be in accordance with the law governing audiovisual media services and the law governing radio media services and electronic publications. 62. Positively, the proposed amendments to Article 64c also provide for judicial review of the AEM decisions imposing a sanction, which may be subject to an administrative dispute, while such appeal does not suspend the enforcement of the AEM decision. Judicial review of administrative decisions is in line with international standards. 47 63. The proposed amendments to Article 64c also prescribe that the AEM shall adopt a rulebook prescribing the criteria and procedure for the monitoring, as well as the standards for imposing sanctions, subject to the prior consent of the C EC. The proposed amendments to A rticle 64c fully address ODIHR Recommendation N.21 . 46 The relevant international standards, including related to independence and mandate of public broadcasters, and media coverage of election campaigns are discussed in the 2025 ODIHR Opinion. See inter alia paragraph 9.1 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document. See the UN HRC General Comment 34 on Article 19 of the ICCPR; the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec (2007)15 On measures concerning media coverage of election campaigns; the Code of Good Practice . See also the European Court of Human Rights judgments in the cases Jersild v. Denmark [GC], application no. 15890/89, Merits and Just Satisfaction, 23 September 1994, para 31; De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, application no. 19983/92, Merits and Just Satisfaction, 24 February 1997, para 37; and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], application no. 21980/93, (dec.) 26 May 1997, para. 58; Orlovskaya Iskra v. Russia , application no. 42911/08, Merits and Just Satisfaction, 21 February 2017, para. 130; Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal, application no. 37698/97, Merits and Just Satisfaction, 28 September 2000, para. 33. See paragraph 25 of the 1999 OSCE Istanbul Document. ODIHR issued recommendations on ensuring editorial independence of public broadcasters, inter alia , in 2023, 2020, 2016. 47 See paragraph 5.10 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 22 3.7. Freedom of Expression in the Election Campaign 64. In line with previous ODIHR Recommendation No.24, which called for “ fully decriminalizing defamation while reviewing vague and broad legal provisions regulating the content of speech and false information to ensure legal certainty and foreseeability and to align their scope with international standards,” Article 52 of the Draft Amendments removes defamation. 48 The proposed amendments replace the word “defamation” with “hate speech.” 49 65. Subsequently, the Draft Amendments introduce provisions addressing hate speech in the electoral context. Montenegro already regulates hate speech through the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, which, following the 2014 amendments, introduced hate speech as a specific form of discrimination and defines it as a form of expression aimed at spreading, inciting, promoting or justifying discrimination, hatred or violence against a person or group of persons based on personal characteristics or affiliation. 50 The reference to hate speech in the electoral framework is therefore welcome, as it builds on existing legal concepts. Although there is no established definition of hate speech in international law, it conventionally refers to speech, writing, or behaviour that attacks, degrades, or uses discriminatory language against a person or group based on inherent characteristics. These defining traits typically include, but are not limited to, race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and age. 51 At the same time, as highlighted by UN human rights mechanisms, measures addressing hate speech should be carefully balanced with the protection of freedom of expression and should not result in overly broad or vague restrictions on legitimate speech, including political expression. 52 Consideration could be given to ensuring full consistency between the terminology and scope of hate speech in the Election Law and the existing legal framework, including by clarifying the applicable threshold and avoiding overlapping or divergent interpretations that could affect legal certainty, foreseeability, and freedom of expression. 66. In addition, amendments to Article 52 may require a review and harmonization of related provisions in other legislation. In particular, Articles 198 and 398 of the Criminal Code and Article 7 of the Law on Public Order and Peace continue to prescribe sanctions for certain forms of speech, including imprisonment for defamation and other speech- related offences. 53 It is recommended to review other relevant legislation to avoid contradictory legal standards. 48 Article 198 of the Criminal Code prescribes a fine or imprisonment of up to one year for public mockery of Montenegro, its flag, coats of arms or anthem; article 398 of the Criminal Code prescribing imprisonment up to three years for “causing panic by the dissemination of false news”; article 7 of the Law on Public Order and Peace punishes “harsh insult in public space” with a fine of EUR 250-1,000 or imprisonment up to 30 days. See the 2023 ODIHR Final Report on early parliamentary elections in Montenegro, p. 20. 49 Paragraph 47 of the 2011 UNHRC General Comment No. 34 stipulates: “States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation, and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty”; Paragraph 25 states that “a norm, to be characterized as a “law”, must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to regulate his or her conduct accordingly and it must be made accessible to the public. A law may not confer unfettered discretion for the restriction of freedom of expression on those charged with its execution”. The 2017 UN, OSCE, OAS, ACHPR Joint declaration on freedom of expression and “fake news”, disinformation and propaganda states: “General prohibitions on the dissemination of information based on vague and ambiguous ideas, including “false news” or “non-objective information”, are incompatible with international standards for restrictions on freedom of expression, as set out in paragraph 1(a), and should be abolished”. 50 See the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, Article 9a. 51 See UN, Understanding Hate Speech. 52 See UN Human Right Committee, List of issues in relation to the initial report of Montenegro (CCPR/C/MNE/Q/1/Add.1). paras 116-118. 53 Article 198 of the Criminal Code prescribes a fine or imprisonment of up to one year for public mockery of Montenegro, its flag, coats of arms or anthem; article 398 of the Criminal Code prescribing imprisonment up to three years for “causing

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 23 RECOMMENDATION G To ensure full consistency between the terminology and scope of the hate speech, including by clarifying the applicable threshold and avoiding overlapping or divergent interpretations that could affect legal certainty, foreseeability, and freedom of expression. 3.8. Misuse of State Resources 67. The 2025 Opinion identified gaps in the regulation of safeguards against misuse of office and administrative resources under the Election Law in force, and recommended (recommendation 22) “to consider introducing additional safeguards to prevent the misuse of state resources and abuse of office, including extending the ban on new hires to temporary employment contracts, publishing information on public expenditure in a user- friendly, searchable manner, educating public officials, candidates and voters on ethical standards, prescribing effective, promptly enforceable sanctions and strengthening the monitoring capacity of civil society, including by means of information and communication technologies.” 68. The proposed Draft Amendments do not address the provisions concerning the use of administrative resources contained in Articles 50a, 51 and 51a. However, it should be noted that corresponding amendments addressing these issues were introduced in the Law on Political Parties and the Law on Financing of Political Entities and Election Campaigns in 2025. It was conveyed to ODIHR that, during the next review process, Articles 50a, 51 and 51a of the law will be harmonized with the newly introduced provisions and changes related to the financing framework. 69. ODIHR further notes that Articles 43–49 of the Law on Financing of Political Entities and Election Campaigns have been substantially amended to address various aspects of the use of administrative resources during electoral campaigns. The revised provisions introduce more detailed and specific prohibitions aimed at addressing previous concerns regarding the misuse of public resources in electoral campaigns, as well as preventing the blurring of boundaries between the exercise of public functions and political activities. 54 If implemented carefully, these provisions are positive as they strengthen safeguards against the misuse of administrative resources and help promote a level playing field in electoral competition. 3.9. Participation of Persons with Disabilities 70. The provisions of the E lection Law in force did not ensure the accessibility of the electoral process for persons with disabilities, at odds with international standards. The international standards require that persons with disabilities can participate in political life on an equal panic by the dissemination of false news”; article 7 of the Law on Public Order and Peace punishes “harsh insult in public space” with a fine of EUR 250-1,000 or imprisonment up to 30 days. See the 2023 ODIHR Final Report on early parliamentary elections in Montenegro, p. 20 54 The 2016 ODIHR and Venice Commission’s Joint Guidelines for Preventing and Responding to the Misuse of Administrative Resources during Electoral Processes provide that “[r]espect for the principles outlined below is essential for preventing and responding to the misuse of administrative resources during electoral processes. Formal, substantive and procedural principles are cumulative prerequisites intended to ensure the foundations of a legal framework to regulate the use of administrative resources.” See Paragraph 5.4 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document, which requires “a clear separation between the state and political parties”.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 24 basis with others and that they have independent access to all aspects of the electoral process. 55 71. ODIHR has made several recommendations to improve the participation of persons with disabilities in the electoral process. This included the ODIHR Recommendation N.10 proposed to “consider introducing measures facilitating the access of persons with disabilities to political office and promoting their electoral chances, including financial, infrastructural, and in- kind measures facilitating visibility in electoral campaigns, as well as public outreach trainings and large-scale awareness-raising campaigns”; Recommendation N.25 proposed to “require by law that public institutions and media provide voter and campaign information in accessible formats”; ODIHR Recommendation N.26 proposed “to revise and supplement the provisions of the Election Law for facilitating the independent voting of persons with disabilities, including by eliminating requirements for proactive requests to receive user-friendly election-related materials and ensuring a wide availability of accessible election-related information, while requiring the responsible authorities to take steps to guarantee the accessibility of polling stations and the availability of assistive tools for voters”. 72. The Draft Amendments propose changes to several articles that impact the participation of persons with disabilities. The proposed paragraph 1 of Article 52a introduces a positive obligation of the submitters of candidate lists, the state, public and local administration and public broadcasters to provide voter and campaign information in an accessible format. 73. The new Article 52a paragraph 3 prescribes that submitters of candidate lists shall be provided under equal conditions with additional facilities to enhance the electoral participation of persons with disabilities, including for adapting campaign materials in an accessible format, available accessible public venues for campaign events and relevant trainings. 74. The proposed provision in Article 52a generally identifies the types of additional facilities to be provided to submitters of electoral lists. However, paragraph 3 would benefit from clarification as to the authority responsible for organising the training and awareness- raising programmes. While the subsequent provision requires the CEC , in cooperation with the competent state administration body, to plan and conduct public information campaigns on the accessibility of the electoral process, it is not clear whether these campaigns are intended to encompass the training and awareness-raising programmes referred to in paragraph 3. If this is the intention, the relationship between the two provisions could be better clarified. Otherwise, the provision could expressly identify the authority responsible for organising such programmes. If the programmes are to be organised by the election administration or another competent public authority, this would be consistent with the objective of promoting the participation of persons with disabilities. 56 However, if the provision is intended to require submitters of electoral lists or political parties to organise such programmes themselves, it may unduly interfere with their organisational autonomy, including their discretion in determining political activities and allocating financial and organisational resources. Such matters would generally be more appropriately left to the internal rules and policies of political parties rather than prescribed by electoral legislation. 75. Similarly, proposed amendments to Article 68 and 84 also aim to promote participation of persons with disabilities in line with previous ODIHR recommendations. More specifically, the proposed paragraph 4 to Article 68 prescribes that the election administration is obliged to designate and equip polling stations in such a way that they are accessible to persons with disabilities, and to ensure that assistive tools for independent 55 See articles 9 and 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) . 56 See CRPD, Article 4 on obligations. See also General Comment No. 2 (2014)

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 25 voting are available at the polling station (voting templates for visually impaired voters, enlarged printed material, information in an easy- to-read version, and others). The proposed paragraph 5 to Article 68 stipulates that, if the accessibility of a polling station cannot be ensured, the competent municipal electoral commission shall be obliged to provide voters with disabilities, without the requirement of a prior request, alternative means of voting, including voting at another accessible polling station, voting in the presence of a voter of their choice, and voting outside the polling station. Lastly, the proposed amendment to Article 84 offers several options to enable persons with disabilities to exercise their voting rights, including independent voting with the use of assisted tools, voting at home and residential social care institutions, and stipulates assisted tools for independent voting. Voters are not required to submit a prior request or application. 76. The proposed amendments introduce important safeguards aimed at ensuring that persons with disabilities can exercise their voting rights on an equal basis with others, including through accessible polling arrangements, assisted tools for independent voting, voting outside polling stations, and voting in residential social care institutions. However, certain aspects would benefit from further clarification. In particular, the relationship between the alternative voting arrangements provided under paragraph 5 of Article 68 and the options introduced under Article 84 should be clarified, including the circumstances in which each option applies and the authority responsible for determining and facilitating access to these measures. 77. While removing the requirement for a prior request is an important step towards ensuring accessibility and preventing barriers to participation, it would be useful to clarify how and when the competent electoral authorities will identify voters who require alternative arrangements and how and when voters will be informed of the available options. This is to ensure that there is no delay. 78. In addition, the law could clarify the procedures and safeguards applicable to assisted voting and voting outside polling stations to ensure that such arrangements protect the secrecy and free expression of the voter’s choice. This could be achieved by including in Articles 68 and 84 an explicit reference that any assistance provided to voters with disabilities shall be carried out in accordance with the principles of voter secrecy. 79. The proposed amendments to Articles 52a, 68 and 84 fully address the ODIHR Recommendations 10, 25 and 26, to enhance the accessibility of the electoral process and to enable independent participation of persons with disabilities from a regulatory perspective, however, consideration could be given to further clarifying the link between paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 52a on the responsibilities for organizing trainings and awareness-raising programmes. Consideration could be given to incorporating explicit safeguards on the secrecy of the vote in Articles 68 and 84. 3.10. Opinion Polls 80. The 2025 ODIHR Opinion assessed the framework on publication of opinion polls and the limitations thereof currently in force as unduly restrictive, due to concerns as to compliance with standards on the right to freedom of expression and access to information guaranteed under Article 19 of the ICCPR and Article 10 of the ECHR, while some provisions were considered conducive to circumvention, including those aiming to limit publication of opinion polls online. 57 Subsequently, the ODIHR Recommendation N.20 proposed “ to reconsider the current prohibition in Article 63 of the Election Law on publishing opinion polls 15 days prior to elections and instead shorten the period from 24 hours before the 57 Article 19, the Comparative Study of Laws and Regulations Restricting the Publication of Electoral Opinion Polls, 2003.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 26 election day to the end of voting. The legal provision on opinion polls after voting (exit polls) should be streamlined and harmonized to ensure clarity and legal certainty.” 81. In line with this recommendation, the proposed amendment to Article 63 replaces the 15- day ban on publication of opinion polls on broadcasting services and other media with a ban on opinion and exit polls during the 24 hours before election day and until the closing of polling stations and extends the ban to social networks. In addition, the proposed paragraph 3 to A rticle 63 suggests that the media and the commissioner of an opinion poll or exit poll must publish information on the commissioner of the poll, the methodology, the size and structure of the sample, the time the survey was conducted, and the name of the agency which conducted the survey. 82. The proposed amendments fully address ODIHR Recommendation N.20. In addition, the additional changes enhance transparency and accountability of opinion polls and exit polls. 3.11. Annulment of V oting and P rovisions on R ecount of Votes 83. Article 69a. Paragraph 2 of the Election Law prescribes dissolution of a polling board (PB) and repeat voting in case of violation of election procedures, including a layout of a polling station which does not ensure secrecy of the vote, campaign materials within a 100- meter radius from the polling station, proxy voting, multiple voting, voting with a forged ballot paper, failure of a voter to sign the voter list. Dissolution of a PB for such irregularities is not a proportionate, dissuasive and effective sanction. As provided by international good practice, it is recommended that “[t]he appeal body must have authority to annul elections where irregularities may have affected the outcome. It must be possible to annul the entire election or merely the results for one constituency or one polling station. In the event of annulment, a new election must be called in the area concerned; f. All candidates and all voters registered in the constituency concerned must be entitled to appeal. A reasonable quorum may be imposed for appeals by voters on the results of elections.” “The powers of appeal bodies are important too. They should have authority to annul elections, if irregularities may have influenced the outcome, i.e. affected the distribution of seats. This is the general principle, but it should be open to adjustment, i.e. annulment should not necessarily affect the whole country or constituency – indeed, it should be possible to annul the results of just one polling station. This makes it possible to avoid the two extremes – annulling an entire election, although irregularities affect a small area only, and refusing to annul, because the area affected is too small. In zones where the results have been annulled, the elections must be repeated.” 58 84. Recommendation N. 27 proposed to prescribe effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for breaches of the law in polling stations, and a mechanism for effective enforcement in a timely manner, while ensuring that polling board dissolution, annulment of voting and repeat voting remain reserved for significant violations or irregularities that may have impacted the results. Recommendation N. 28 proposed to prescribe an official procedure for amending the Polling Boards’ results protocols when the figures do not reconcile, while, in case of irreconcilable errors that affect election results, mandating the Municipal Election Commissions to organize recounts in the presence of party representatives and observers prior to annulling voting, in which case repeat voting should be held in the area concerned. 85. The proposed Article 108a, establishes a corrective mechanism for resolving inconsistencies in polling board records during the determination of voting results. This 58 See the Code of Good P ractice, Guidelines, para. I.3.4.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 27 procedure must be conducted transparently, in the presence of polling board members, authorised representatives of electoral list submitters, and potentially observers. If the inconsistency could affect election results in the relevant electoral unit, a recount of votes from the concerned polling station must be conducted. Annulment of voting and repeat voting are permitted only where a recount cannot be carried out or where irregularities cannot otherwise be remedied. 86. This partially addresses ODIHR Recommendation No. 27, but it does not fully implement it in relation to the proportionate sanction regarding polling board dissolution. More specifically, it is aligned with the recommendation to the extent that it establishes a remedial and proportional approach to irregularities at polling stations since it prioritises correction of polling board records and recounting of votes before resorting to annulment and repeat voting. This part is consistent with ODIHR’s recommendation that annulment and repeat voting should be reserved for significant violations or irregularities that may have affected the election results. 87. However, part of R ecommendation N. 27 also relates to avoiding disproportionate consequences, such as the dissolution of a polling board or the annulment of voting, in cases where irregularities are not sufficiently serious to affect the election results. This aspect has not been addressed through Article 69a, which provides for disproportionate consequences in response to such irregularity. An amendment to this provision is therefore necessary to ensure that dissolution of the polling board is reserved only for serious violations that may have affected the election results. Similarly, under Article 89 paragraph 9, where it is established that the number of ballot papers found in the ballot box exceeds the number of voters who cast their vote as recorded in the excerpt from the voters’ register, or exceeds the number of control slips, or where two or more control slips with the same serial number or with a serial number not assigned to the respective polling station are identified, the polling board shall be dissolved, a new polling board shall be appointed, and voting at that polling station shall be repeated. The election results for that polling station shall only be established following the repeated voting. It is recommended to delete paragraph 2 of Article 69a as well as wording “the polling board shall be dissolved, and a new one shall be appointed” in Article 89. 88. In addition, Article 89 does not prescribe recounts nor an official procedure for amending the result protocols when the figures do not reconcile. This regulatory gap has been subject to repeated criticism by ODIHR and the Venice Commission, and the long- standing recommendations to amend Article 89 to provide for measures alternative to repeat voting remain unaddressed. 59 Positively, the proposed amendments to paragraph 3 of Article 108a fully address ODIHR Recommendation No. 28 concerning the introduction of a recount procedure in cases of identified irregularities, accompanied by appropriate procedural safeguards. 3.12. Election D ispute R esolution and Sanctions for I rregularities 89. ODIHR Recommendation N.29 proposed “ to provide in the Election Law the right of contestants and a quorum of voters to challenge the special reports on the preliminary election results. The appeal body should have the authority to annul elections where irregularities may have affected the outcome.” ODIHR Recommendation N.30 proposed 59 See most prior ODIHR reports on elections in Montenegro, most recently in 2023, where ODIHR recommended “To ensure the integrity and accountability of tabulation, the law should prescribe an official procedure for amending the PB result protocols when the figures do not reconcile. In case of irreconcilable errors that affect election results, the MECs should be mandated to organize recounts in the presence of party representatives and observers. See also Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Amendments and Supplements to the Law on the Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament of Montenegro as amended through July 2006.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 28 “to consider extending the rights of voters to file complaints on all aspects of the electoral process, including the possibility to challenge election results with a reasonable quorum.” 90. Proposed amendments to Article 106 broaden standing to challenge electoral violations by granting the right to lodge complaints to every voter, electoral list submitter, candidate and authorised representative of an electoral list at all stages of the electoral process, including candidate nomination, campaign, voting, results determination and publication, and the protection of the election results. It also introduces a new provision allowing election results to be challenged not only by electoral list submitters but also by a group of at least 100 registered voters in the relevant electoral unit through a complaint against the decision determining the election results. From a drafting and legislative clarity perspective, this amendment would more appropriately be placed in Article 107, which regulates complaints against decisions determining the election results. Its inclusion in Article 106 appears to be a drafting error, and it is acknowledged that this may simply be a typographical or technical oversight. 91. Similarly, proposed amendments to Article 108b expand on Article 106 and provide that the submitter of an electoral list or a group of voters may challenge the preliminary election results by filing a complaint with the competent electoral commission within 72 hours after the publication of the preliminary results. The electoral commission must decide on the complaint within 72 hours of receiving it. If, upon reviewing the complaint, the competent electoral commission or the CEC finds that electoral irregularities occurred that could have influenced or did influence the election outcome, it must annul the election either in whole or in the affected part and order a repeat of the voting in accordance with the law. By providing a timely complaints procedure, clear decision- making deadlines, and the possibility of annulling and repeating elections where irregularities may have affected the outcome, it helps ensure the effective protection of electoral rights and the integrity of the electoral process. This provision is consistent with international obligations and established principles of good electoral practice. International obligations and OSCE commitments provide that strong procedural guarantees are necessary, to ensure everyone’s right to “effective means of redress against administrative decisions so as to guarantee respect for fundamental rights and ensure legal integrity, [including] the possibility for judicial review of such […] decisions.” 60 In addition, good practice recommends that “All candidates and all voters registered in a constituency concerned must be entitled to appeal. A reasonable quorum may be imposed for appeals by voters on the results of elections […]”. 61 Respectively, previous ODIHR Recommendation N. 30 is fully implemented. 92. The proposed amendments to Article 115 establish a comprehensive system of misdemeanour sanctions for violations of electoral rules, including unlawful campaigning, breaches of election silence, failure to provide accessible campaign materials, unlawful publication of opinion polls, obstruction of election administration, and other violations of the Electoral Law, most of the new misdemeanours which are also proposed by the Draft Amendments. They also specify the range of fines applicable to legal entities, responsible persons, individuals, and media service providers, thereby strengthening the enforcement of electoral regulations and promoting compliance. The provisions criminalising the 60 To ensure the right to an effective remedy, it is imperative that judicial procedures, including appeal and review, fully comply with international fair trial standards, as enshrined in Article 14 of the ICCPR and elaborated in General Comment No. 32 of the UN Human Rights Committee. Furthermore, such procedures must be timely, accessible, and affordable, consistent with the obligations under Article 2(3) of the ICCPR and the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. See also OSCE 1990 Copenhagen Document , particularly paragraphs 5.10 to 5.18, which reaffirm the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, and emphasize due process guarantees, including the presumption of innocence, access to legal counsel, and the right to appeal. 61 See paragraphs I.3.3.e and f. and paragraphs 92, 93, 94, 101 of the Code of Good Practice and its Explanatory Report.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 29 misuse of the army, state institutions, and public officials for electoral purposes have been removed from the law. The range of fines is also amended in Article 116. 93. The proposed amendments largely address ODIHR Recommendation No. 31, which “proposed to ensure that all violations of the Election Law are provided with graduated, dissuasive and proportionate sanctions and that the existing definitions of offences encompass the scope of violations and possible perpetrators fully.” Specifically, they address this by expanding the range of electoral offen ces subject to sanctions, covering different categories of perpetrators, and establishing graduated fines that are intended to be proportionate and dissuasive. Their practical effectiveness, however, will depend on their consistent enforcement. 94. The proposed amendment to A rticle 117 establishes the criteria for determining penalties for electoral misdemeanours, requiring the competent authorit y to consider factors, such as “the degree of culpability of the perpetrator, the consequences of the committed misdemeanour for the integrity of the electoral process, the recurrence of misdemeanours by the same perpetrator, the circumstances in which the misdemeanour was committed, as well as the proportionality of the penalty imposed to the value of the protected interest”. The amendments afford the competent authorities a reasonable margin of appreciation, while prescribing to impose “ graduated, dissuasive and proportionate sanction”. These amendments further address ODIHR Recommendation No. 31 “to enquired that all violations of the Election Law are provided with graduated, dissuasive and proportionate sanctions and that the existing definitions of offenc es encompass fully the scope of violations and possible perpetrators.” The proposed amendments collectively address ODIHR Recommendation No. 31 by ensuring that electoral violations are subject to a comprehensive framework of sanctions. While amendments to Articles 115 and 116 expand the scope of offen ces and clarify the categories of offen ces, Article 117 establishes criteria for determining sanctions, requiring consideration of factors such as culpability, consequences for the integrity of the electoral process, recurrence, and proportionality. Together, these provisions ens ure that sanctions for electoral violations are graduated, dissuasive, and proportionate, in line with international standards and good electoral practice. 62 Their practical effectiveness, however, will also depend on their consistent enforcement. [END OF TEXT] 62 See paragraph 3.3.1.c of the Code of Good Practice.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 30 ANNEX PROPOSAL LAW ON AMENDMENTS TO THE LAW ON THE ELECTION OF COUNCILLORS AND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT Article 1 In the Law on the Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament (“Official Gazette of the RoM”, Nos. 4/98, 5/98, 17/98, 14/00, 9/01, 41/02, 46/02, 48/06 and 56/06, and “Official Gazette of Montenegro”, Nos. 46/11, 14/14, 47/14, 12/16, 60/17, 10/18, 109/20 and 81/25), in Article 11, after paragraph 2, a new paragraph is added, reading: “When determining residence in Montenegro, that is in a municipality, urban municipality or the Capital City as an electoral unit, within the meaning of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, in addition to the conditions prescribed by the law governing the registers of residence and temporary residence, the following objective criteria shall also be taken into account: 1) the filing of tax returns in Montenegro as a tax resident; 2) ownership, lease or another legal title to immovable property used for housing; 3) the exercise of rights from mandatory social and health insurance in Montenegro; 4) an established employment relationship, or the performance of an economic or professional activity on the territory of Montenegro, that is in the relevant local self-government unit; 5) actual uninterrupted stay in Montenegro for a period of at least six months in a year.” Article 2 In Article 38, after paragraph 2, three new paragraphs are added, reading: “An electoral list shall be considered the electoral list of a minority people or of a minority national community, within the meaning of this Law, if it cumulatively meets the following criteria: 1) that it is submitted by a political party, a coalition of political parties, or a group of voters which, in its name, statute or programme, clearly and unequivocally identifies itself with a specific minority people or minority national community; 2) that at least two thirds of the candidates on the list are members of the minority people or minority national community with which the electoral list identifies itself; Fulfilment of the criteria from paragraph 3 of this Article shall be determined by the competent electoral commission by a decision. If the submitter of the electoral list does not meet the criteria from paragraph 3 of this Article, the electoral list shall be certified under the general rules and shall not be subject to the exemptions from Article 94, paragraph 2 of this Law, nor may it use the rights from paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of this Article.” Article 3

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 31 Article 44 is amended to read: “Article 44 A voter may, by his or her signature, support one or more electoral lists for the election of councillors and one or more electoral lists for the election of members of Parliament. A single voter's signature may be used only once in the procedure for supporting the same electoral list and may not be used for simultaneous support of a coalition and its individual members.” Article 4 In Article 50, after paragraph 1, two new paragraphs are added, reading: “An electoral campaign, within the meaning of this Law, shall be considered to be the set of activities of submitters of electoral lists, candidates and third parties acting in their name and for their benefit, by which the electoral programme, ideas, candidates and the electoral list are directly or indirectly presented, and which are conducted in the period from the day the elections are called until the announcement of the preliminary results of the elections. The activities from the preceding paragraph shall include public gatherings, panels and promotional events, media and political advertising in all forms of media, advertising and presentation in electronic publications and on social networks, the distribution of promotional materials, and other forms of public presentation.” Article 5 In Article 52, paragraph 1, the words: “insults and defamation” are replaced by the words: “insults, hate speech”. Article 6 After Article 52, a new Article is added, reading: “Article 52a Submitters of electoral lists, candidates, the bodies competent for conducting elections, state administration bodies, local self-government bodies and public service broadcasters shall be obliged to provide voters with information on the electoral process and the electoral campaign in accessible formats, which shall include in particular: 1) announcements, forms and informational materials in enlarged print, Braille, sign language and in an electronic format adapted for screen readers; 2) subtitles, sign language interpretation and audio description in television programmes and public video content relating to the electoral process; 3) an easy-to-understand version of the text (so- called “easy-to-read information”) for voters with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities. The obligation from paragraph 1 of this Article shall be fulfilled by providers of audiovisual media services, providers of radio media services and providers of electronic publications in accordance with the law governing audiovisual media services. In order to enhance the electoral opportunities of persons with disabilities, submitters of electoral lists shall be provided, under equal conditions, with additional facilities for conducting the electoral campaign, in particular for: 1) adapting promotional materials in accessible formats;

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 32 2) the availability of publicly owned premises for holding gatherings and promotional activities which are accessible to persons with disabilities; 3) participation in training and awareness-raising programmes on the political and public engagement of persons with disabilities. The Central Electoral Commission, in cooperation with the state administration body competent for the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities, shall plan and conduct public information campaigns on the accessibility of the electoral process.” Article 7 Article 63 is amended to read: “Article 63 In the period of 24 hours before the day of holding the elections and until the closing of polling stations on the day of the elections, the publication of the results of public opinion polls, other research and analyses concerning voters' preferences, nor of estimates of election results, shall not be permitted in the programmes of media service providers, in electronic publications or on social networks. Public opinion research conducted among voters after they have voted (exit polls) may be carried out during the day of the elections, but the results of such research may be published only after the closing of polling stations. The media service provider and the commissioner of the research referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall, when publishing the results of public opinion polls, indicate the commissioner of the research, the methodology, the size and structure of the sample, the time the research was conducted and the name of the agency that conducted the research.” Article 8 Article 64a is amended to read: “Article 64a The right to media coverage during the electoral campaign shall commence on the day the electoral list is certified and shall cease 24 hours before the day of holding the elections, when the election silence begins. The election silence shall last from the expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article until the closing of the polling stations on election day. During the election silence, all electoral campaign activities shall be prohibited, in particular: 1) political advertising in the programmes of media service providers, in electronic publications, on websites and on social networks; 2) the media presentation of candidates and submitters of electoral lists, with the exception of reporting on the electoral process to the minimum extent necessary to inform the public; 3) physical, direct addressing of voters, conducting a “door-to-door” campaign, organising public gatherings, panels and promotional events; 4) the distribution of promotional materials, propaganda symbols, gifts and other materials in favour of a submitter of an electoral list or a candidate; 5) calling on voters to vote in favour of a particular electoral list or candidate through electronic communications, including e-mail and messaging services.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 33 The prohibition from paragraph 3 of this Article shall not apply to content published before the start of the election silence which remains available on the internet, provided that during the election silence no additional promotion, paid advertising or prominent display thereof is carried out.” Article 9 After Article 64b, a new Article is added, reading: “Article 64c Supervision of compliance with the provisions of this Law and of other regulations governing the presentation of submitters of electoral lists and candidates in the programmes of providers of audiovisual media services, providers of radio media services and in electronic publications, as well as of compliance by such entities with the rules on election silence, shall be carried out by the Agency for Audiovisual Media Services (hereinafter: the Agency). The Agency shall, during the electoral campaign, conduct regular and enhanced monitoring of the programmes and content from paragraph 1 of this Article, and shall publish weekly reports thereon, as well as separate consolidated reports after the conclusion of the elections. If the Agency establishes that a media service provider or a provider of an electronic publication has breached the provisions of this Law or of another regulation referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, it may impose the following measures, in proportion to the gravity, nature and consequences of the violation: 1) a warning; 2) a public reprimand; 3) an order to publish a correction, denial or special announcement in the same programme slot and to the same extent; 4) an order for the removal or suspension of publication of unlawful content; 5) a temporary ban on the publication of political advertising lasting until the conclusion of the electoral process; 6) a fine in accordance with the law governing audiovisual media services and the law governing radio media services and electronic publications. An administrative dispute may be initiated against a decision of the Agency for Electronic Media imposing a measure referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article, which shall not suspend the enforcement of the decision. The Agency for Electronic Media shall adopt a special rulebook which shall set out in more detail the criteria and procedure for the monitoring referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, as well as the standards for imposing the measures referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article, subject to the prior consent of the Central Electoral Commission.” Article 10 In Article 68, after paragraph 3, two new paragraphs are added, reading: “The body competent for conducting elections shall be obliged to designate and equip polling stations in such a way that they are accessible to persons with disabilities, and to ensure that aids for independent voting are available at the polling station, in particular voting templates for blind voters, enlarged printed material, information in an easy- to-read version, and other aids prescribed by an act of the State Electoral Commission.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 34 If the accessibility of a polling station cannot be ensured, the competent municipal electoral commission shall be obliged to provide voters with disabilities, without their having to submit a prior request, with alternative means of voting prescribed by this Law, including voting at another accessible polling station, voting in the presence of a voter of their choice, and voting outside the polling station.” Article 11 In Article 84, paragraphs 1 and 2 are amended to read: “A voter who, due to a disability, illness, old age or other justified reason, is unable to vote independently at a polling station, shall have the right to an accessible means of voting, including: 1) assistance in voting from a person of his or her own choice, who may not be a member of the polling board nor an authorised representative of a submitter of an electoral list; 2) voting by using aids for independent voting which the polling board is obliged to provide at the polling station; 3) voting outside the polling station (voting at home, in a health- care institution, an institution of social and child protection or another place where the voter is located), of which the polling board shall draw up a separate record. A voter shall exercise the right from paragraph 1 of this Article without having to submit a prior request or application for entry into a special extract from the voters' register, whereby the competent body and the polling board shall take the necessary measures to enable voters with disabilities and other voters who exercise their voting rights with difficulty to vote independently, in secret and in person.” Article 12 In Article 94, after paragraph 3, a new paragraph is added, reading: “An electoral list which meets the criteria from Article 38, paragraph 3 of this Law and which has been determined by the competent electoral commission, in accordance with Article 38, paragraph 4 of this Law, to be the list of a minority people or of a minority national community, shall enjoy the rights prescribed in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this Article. An electoral list which does not meet the said criteria shall participate in the allocation of seats under the general rules, without the application of the facilities provided for in this Article.” Article 13 In Article 106, paragraph 1 is amended to read: “The right to lodge a complaint on account of a violation of the right to vote in the procedure for conducting elections and of a violation of the procedure prescribed by this Law may be exercised by every voter, submitter of an electoral list, candidate and authorised representative of a submitter of an electoral list at all stages of the electoral process, including the proposal and certification of electoral lists, the electoral campaign, the conduct of voting, the determination and publication of the election results, and the protection of the election results.” After paragraph 1, a new paragraph is added, reading: “The results of the elections may be contested by the submitter of an electoral list, as well as by a group of voters comprising at least 100 voters entered in the voters' register in the relevant electoral unit, by a complaint against the decision determining the results of the elections, in accordance with this Law.”

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 35 The previous paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 shall become paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. Article 14 After Article 108, two new Articles are added, reading: “Article 108a If, in the procedure for determining the results of voting, an inconsistency is established between the data in the polling board's record and other evidence of the conduct of voting, or if the data in the polling board's record are not mutually aligned, the competent municipal electoral commission shall be obliged to immediately initiate the procedure for amending or correcting the polling board's record. The procedure referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be carried out in the presence of all members of the polling board and of the authorised representatives of submitters of electoral lists, with the possibility of the attendance of domestic and international observers. The corrected or amended record must be signed by all members of the polling board who have taken part in the procedure, and separate opinions shall be entered in the record. If, in the procedure referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, it is established that the inconsistency may affect the election results in the relevant electoral unit, the municipal electoral commission shall conduct a recount of the votes from the polling station concerned, in the presence of the members of the polling board, the authorised representatives of submitters of electoral lists and the observers. The annulment of voting and a repeat of voting may be ordered only if the recount of votes referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article cannot be carried out, or if the irregularities cannot otherwise be remedied, in which case the repeated voting shall be conducted only at the polling station at which the irregularities were established. Article 108b The submitter of an electoral list and the group of voters referred to in Article 106, paragraph 2 of this Law may, within 72 hours of the publication of the special reports on the preliminary results of the elections, lodge a complaint with the competent electoral commission contesting those reports. The competent electoral commission shall decide on the complaint referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article within 72 hours of receiving the complaint. If the competent electoral commission, or the Central Electoral Commission, in deciding on a complaint referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article or on a complaint referred to in Article 106, paragraph 2 of this Law, establishes that irregularities were committed in the electoral process which could have affected, or which did affect, the outcome of the elections, it shall issue a decision annulling the elections in whole or in respect of the part to which the irregularities relate and shall order a repeat of the voting in accordance with this Law.” Article 15 Article 115 is amended to read: “Article 115 A legal person, that is a submitter of an electoral list, shall be fined from EUR 1,000 to EUR 20,000 for the misdemeanour if: 1) it conducts electoral activities contrary to Articles 50 and 52 of this Law;

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 36 2) during the election silence referred to in Article 64a of this Law it conducts an electoral campaign or political advertising; 3) it fails to act in accordance with the obligation to provide accessible formats from Article 52a of this Law; 4) it publishes the results of public opinion polls, other research and exit polls contrary to Article 63 of this Law; 5) it obstructs the work of a polling board, a municipal electoral commission or the State Electoral Commission; 6) it commits other violations of the provisions of this Law whose prohibition is prescribed. A fine of EUR 500 to EUR 4,000 shall be imposed for the misdemeanour referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article also on the responsible person in the legal person. A fine of EUR 300 to EUR 2,000 shall be imposed on a natural person for the misdemeanour referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. A fine of EUR 2,000 to EUR 20,000 shall be imposed for the misdemeanour referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article on a provider of audiovisual media services, a provider of radio media services and a provider of electronic publications.” Article 16 In Article 116, paragraph 1, the words: “from EUR 200 to EUR 2,000” shall be replaced by the words: “from EUR 500 to EUR 5,000”. In paragraph 2, the words: “from EUR 100 to EUR 1,000” shall be replaced by the words: “from EUR 200 to EUR 2,000”. Article 17 In Article 117, after paragraph 1, a new paragraph is added, reading: “When determining the penalty for the misdemeanours referred to in Articles 115 and 116 of this Law, the competent authority shall take into account, in particular, the degree of culpability of the perpetrator, the consequences of the committed misdemeanour for the integrity of the electoral process, the recurrence of misdemeanours by the same perpetrator, the circumstances in which the misdemeanour was committed, as well as the proportionality of the penalty imposed to the value of the protected interest, with the aim of ensuring graduated, dissuasive and proportionate sanctions.” Transitional and Final Provisions Article 18 The bylaws for the implementation of this Law shall be adopted within six months from the date of entry into force of this Law. Until the adoption of the regulations referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, the existing regulations shall apply, provided they are not contrary to this Law. Article 19 The Agency for Audiovisual Media Services shall adopt the rulebook referred to in Article 64c, paragraph 5 of the Law on the Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament within 90 days of the date of entry into force of this Law.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 37 Article 20 Procedures for the exercise and protection of the right to vote which were commenced before the entry into force of this Law shall be concluded under the regulations that were in force at the time they were initiated. Article 21 This Law shall enter into force on the eighth day from the date of its publication in the “Official Gazette of Montenegro”. E X P L A N A T I O N I. CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE LAW The constitutional basis for the adoption of the Law on Amendments to the Law on the Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament (hereinafter: the Law) is contained in Article 16, item 5, Article 45 and Article 82, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Constitution of Montenegro, which provide that the law shall regulate the exercise of freedoms and rights, the manner and procedure for exercising the right to vote, as well as other matters of importance for Montenegro. II. REASONS FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE LAW The Law on Amendments to the Law on the Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament is being adopted in order to act upon the Opinion of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co- operation in Europe (ODIHR), ELE- MNE/544/2025 of 2 June 2025, which provided detailed observations and recommendations for improving the electoral legislation of Montenegro and aligning it with international standards on democratic elections and OSCE human-dimension commitments. Starting from Montenegro's commitment to comprehensively improve electoral legislation, and taking into account that one part of the recommendations was implemented by the Law on Amendments to the Law on the Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament (“Official Gazette of Montenegro”, No. 81/2025 of 29 July 2025), the proposed amendments cover that portion of the recommendations which, on the basis of the working group's analysis, were assessed as suitable for legislative elaboration. The aim of the proposed amendments is to enhance legal certainty, precision and transparency in the electoral process, to strengthen the protection of the right to vote, to improve the accessibility of elections for persons with disabilities, to clarify the rules on the electoral campaign and the election silence, to strengthen the mechanisms of supervision and sanctioning, as well as to harmonise the provisions of the Law with international good practices. III. COMPATIBILITY WITH EUROPEAN UNION LEGISLATION There is no obligation to harmonise the matter governed by this Law with European Union legislation, since the regulation of elections at the national and local level falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States. However, the proposed amendments respect the general European Union standards in the area of the rule of law, the protection of human rights and freedoms, the rights of national minorities, the prohibition of discrimination and the rights of persons with disabilities, contained in particular in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. IV. EXPLANATION OF INDIVIDUAL PROVISIONS Re Article 1

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 38 The proposed addition to Article 11 of the Law on the Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament (hereinafter: the basic law) introduces objective and verifiable criteria for determining the residence of voters in Montenegro, that is in a municipality, urban municipality or the Capital City as an electoral unit. The criteria are introduced in addition to the conditions prescribed by the law governing the registers of residence and temporary residence, with the aim of preventing manipulation in the registration of voters and increasing confidence in the voters' register. This solution implements the ODIHR recommendation that, for the residence conditions which remain in force, clear and objective criteria for determining habitual residence should be introduced, such as the filing of tax returns or ownership or lease of immovable property. Re Article 2 The amendment to Article 38 of the basic law prescribes clear, objective and cumulative criteria for granting the status of a list of minority peoples or of a minority national community. The criteria cover the identification of the submitter with a specific minority national community and the representation of members of that community among the candidates. At the same time, it is prescribed that an electoral list which does not meet the criteria shall not enjoy the facilities for lists of minority peoples or minority national communities provided for in this Law, thereby implementing the ODIHR recommendation. Re Article 3 The amendment to Article 44 of the basic law abolishes the restriction under which a voter may, by his or her signature, support only one electoral list for the election of councillors and only one electoral list for the election of members of Parliament. The proposed solution ensures pluralism in the procedure for proposing electoral lists and alignment with international good practice, while at the same time prescribing a measure for protecting the integrity of the signature- collection procedure. Re Article 4 The amendment to Article 50 of the basic law provides a clear and uniform definition of an electoral campaign in the context of the Law on the Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament, which is aligned with the concept of an electoral campaign as defined in the Law on the Financing of Political Entities and Election Campaigns, thereby remedying a legal gap pointed out by the ODIHR recommendation. By defining all forms of activity that are considered an electoral campaign, comprehensive and consistent regulation of campaign activities in traditional and digital media, as well as in direct addressing of voters, is ensured. Re Article 5 The amendment to Article 52 of the basic law deletes the words: “and defamation” from the provision establishing the fair conduct of participants in the electoral campaign. This implements the ODIHR recommendation on the full decriminalisation of defamation and the alignment with international standards on freedom of expression. At the same time, an explicit prohibition of hate speech is introduced into the electoral legislation, as a concept which is precisely defined in domestic and international regulations. Re Article 6 The addition of a new Article 52a to the basic law prescribes the obligation of submitters of electoral lists, candidates, the competent bodies, state administration bodies, local self- government bodies and public service broadcasters to provide voters with information on the electoral process and the electoral campaign in accessible formats. It also prescribes additional facilities for persons with disabilities in the conduct of the electoral campaign and the obligation of the State Electoral Commission, in cooperation with the competent authority, to conduct public awareness campaigns on the accessibility of the electoral process.

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 39 Re Article 7 The amendment to Article 63 of the basic law shortens the ban on the publication of the results of public opinion polls and other research concerning voters' preferences from the current 15 days to a period of 24 hours before the day of holding the elections. At the same time, the rules on exit polls are simplified and mandatory elements for the publication of the results of public opinion polls are prescribed, thereby ensuring legal certainty and alignment with international standards. Re Article 8 The amendment to Article 64a of the basic law clarifies the definition of the election silence and exhaustively lists the activities prohibited during the period of election silence, including physical, direct addressing of voters, conducting a campaign, organising promotional events and political advertising in traditional media, electronic publications and on social networks. This removes the ambiguities pointed out in the ODIHR recommendation. Re Article 9 The addition of a new Article 64c to the basic law entrusts the Agency for Audiovisual Media with the competence to supervise compliance with the electoral provisions by providers of audiovisual media services, providers of radio media services and providers of electronic publications. At the same time, a gradual system of measures which the Agency may impose is prescribed, including a warning, a public reprimand, an order to publish a correction, a temporary ban on advertising and a fine, thereby ensuring an effective, proportionate and dissuasive system of sanctions. Re Articles 10 and 11 The amendments to Article 68 and the amendments to Article 84 of the basic law improve independent voting for persons with disabilities. The requirement of prior submission of a request to obtain election materials in an accessible format is abolished, the obligation of the competent authorities to ensure the accessibility of polling stations and the availability of aids for independent voting is prescribed, as are alternative means of voting for voters whose polling stations cannot be made accessible. Re Article 12 The amendment to Article 94 of the basic law clarifies that the facilities in the allocation of seats apply only to those electoral lists which meet the criteria laid down in Article 38, paragraph 3 of this Law, while other electoral lists are treated under the general rules. This fully implements the ODIHR recommendation on the objective assessment of the status of a list of a minority people or of a minority national community. Re Article 13 The amendment and addition to Article 106 of the basic law expands the right of voters, submitters of electoral lists, candidates and their authorised representatives to lodge complaints concerning all stages of the electoral process, including contesting the election results. A minimum quorum of 100 voters entered in the voters' register in the relevant electoral unit who may contest the election results is also prescribed, thereby ensuring proportionate and effective exercise of the right to a legal remedy. Re Article 14 The addition of Articles 108a and 108b to the basic law prescribes an official procedure for amending or correcting the records of polling boards in cases where the data do not match, a mandatory recount of votes in cases where the inconsistency may affect the election results, in the presence of members of the polling board, authorised representatives of submitters of

Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Election of Councillors and Members of Parliament 40 electoral lists and observers, as well as the limitation of repeating voting to the specific polling station only. The right of submitters of electoral lists and of a quorum of voters to contest the special reports on the preliminary results of the elections is also introduced, together with the power of the competent electoral commission to annul the elections in whole or in part if it establishes that irregularities could have affected, or did affect, the outcome of the elections. This ensures full alignment with the ODIHR recommendations. Re Articles 15, 16 and 17 The amendments to Articles 115 and 116 of the basic law expand the scope of punishable acts, clarify the misdemeanours and increase the ranges of fines, thereby ensuring a graduated, effective, dissuasive and proportionate system of sanctions. The amendment to Article 117 of the basic law lays down the criteria for determining the penalty with a view to ensuring graduated, dissuasive and proportionate sanctions in accordance with the ODIHR recommendation. Re Articles 18, 19, 20 and 21 The transitional and final provisions lay down the deadlines for the adoption of bylaws and of the rulebook of the Agency for Audiovisual Media, the manner of resolving procedures already commenced, and the day of entry into force of the Law. V. ASSESSMENT OF THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES NECESSARY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW The funds for the implementation of this Law shall be provided in the budget of Montenegro, within the approved appropriations of the Central Electoral Commission, the Agency for Audiovisual Media and other competent authorities. Additional funds are required for: ensuring the accessibility of polling stations, the procurement of aids for independent voting, public information campaigns on the accessibility of elections, and the implementation of the monitoring activities of the Agency for Audiovisual Media. The assessment of the additional funds required shall be determined in accordance with budgetary procedures.