Dear Members of Parliament,
We are addressing you regarding the amendment to the Draft Law on Free Access to Information, which was supported by the Committee on Political System, Judiciary and Administration upon the proposal of PES MP Vasilije Čarapić, and which stipulates that in administrative disputes initiated due to “administrative silence,” each party shall bear its own costs.
This amendment is not merely a technical “fine-tuning” of the text, but a substantive undermining of the public’s right to access information of public importance. Free access to information is not an abstract legal norm — it is a tool without which citizens cannot protect their rights, the media cannot perform their work, and civil society cannot hold the authorities accountable. If this tool is rendered financially meaningless, the right remains only on paper, while the fight against corruption is systematically weakened.
It is particularly important to recall that the right of access to information is guaranteed by the Constitution, as are the right to a legal remedy and the right to a fair trial before an independent court. Judicial protection must be real and effective, not merely formal. If a rule is introduced whereby a citizen, journalist, or organization, even after proving a violation of their rights, must still expect to bear their own legal costs, then that right is effectively being “charged for” even when the state has unquestionably acted unlawfully.
This creates a financial barrier to access to justice and undermines equality of arms, since the state appears as the stronger party, with a budget and resources, while the burden of fighting for legality is shifted onto the individual.
It is especially concerning that this solution completely misses the root cause of the problem: the unlawful conduct of institutions that fail to act upon requests within the legally prescribed deadlines.
Instead of strengthening the obligation of authorities to issue decisions and thereby preventing obstruction, the amendment effectively introduces a rule under which a citizen, journalist, or NGO, even after proving that an authority violated the law, must still pay the price of that violation. The message sent to the public is: “You may sue the state, but you will pay for it.”
This particularly affects the most vulnerable among us — people who cannot afford court fees, lawyers, and litigation costs; families fighting for social rights; persons with disabilities trying to access services to which they are entitled; citizens from smaller communities seeking information about local decisions affecting their lives; victims of violence or discrimination attempting to obtain evidence; as well as media outlets and organizations working in the public interest that are already under considerable pressure. These are precisely the people whom the law should serve the most — not discourage and force into giving up.
The proposer of the amendment, MP Vasilije Čarapić, has evidently failed to consider the real-life consequences of such a solution. In a system where “administrative silence” and delays have already become a common mechanism for concealing information, abolishing the cost liability of authorities sends the wrong signal: institutions will have an additional incentive not to respond, knowing that it carries no consequences for them. When “silence” bears no financial consequence, it becomes the cheapest and safest way to avoid accountability and hide documents of public interest.
Moreover, this amendment pushes citizens into an unequal struggle with the state. Public authorities have budgets, legal departments, and resources, while for an ordinary person or a small media outlet every court proceeding represents a risk. If they know in advance that, even when they win a case due to the unlawful inaction of an institution, they will still have to cover their own costs — many will not even try. This is a silent, yet highly effective restriction on access to information: not through an explicit “no,” but through financial discouragement.
At the same time, such a solution would likely fail constitutional scrutiny — the only question is why the proposer would deliberately choose to damage the public’s right to know instead of addressing the real problems in the implementation of the law and strengthening institutional accountability.
At a time when measurable results are expected from the state in the fight against corruption, MP Čarapić is proposing a solution that deprives citizens and civil society of the opportunity to be an active part of the overall efforts for Montenegro to successfully close negotiation Chapters 23 and 24. The successful closure of these chapters is impossible without strong mechanisms of public oversight, access to information, and effective judicial protection — and this amendment runs directly counter to that goal.
We therefore call on you not to support this amendment in plenary session. If there is concern about preventing abuse, the solution cannot be to punish everyone seeking justice and information, but rather to introduce targeted measures sanctioning clearly malicious requests. A blanket rule that “everyone bears their own costs” is wrong, unjust, and dangerous, because it rewards unlawful conduct by public authorities.
Free access to information is one of the few mechanisms through which citizens can uncover the truth about how their money is spent, how decisions are made, and who bears responsibility. Do not allow the essence of the law to be dismantled through an amendment that appears “moderate” at first glance, while sending the message that institutions may remain silent with impunity.
The undersigned civil society organisations and activists:
- Network for the affirmation of the NGO sector – MANS
- Human Rights Action – HRA
- Centre for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG)
- GREEN HOME
- Fidelity Consulting
- Aleksandar Dragićević, activist
- Nvo 35mm
- CEE Bankwatch Network
- Milica Kankaraš Berber, activist
- Danijel Garić, activist
- NVO Mogul
- Dr Martin Schneider-Jacoby Assoc. – MSJA
- NVU LBTQ žena Stana
- Mladen Ivanović, director and activist
- Expeditio Kotor
- Dina Bajramspahić, activist
- NVO Prima
- Youth Initiative for Human Rights
- Balkan Research Network Montenegro
- Association of disabled youth of Montenegro – UMHCG
- NVO Zora
- NVO Bezbjednost žena
- NVO Posejdon
- NVO “Grupa građana BU2”
- NVO “Udruženje Vasojevića Primorja i Boke”
- Mediteran News
- Vasojevićka Riječ
- NVO ”Ekološki centar Delfin”
- Siniša Nadaždin, CRINI
- Crnogorski forum (Montenegrin forum)
- NVO NADA-Herceg Novi
- Centre for the Protection and Study of Birds – CZIP
- Organisation KOD
- Centre for the Development of NGOs – CRNVO
- RERI
- Society of Young Ecologists Nikšić
- Parkovi Dinarida – mreža zaštićenih područja Dinarida
- Ženska akcija
- NVO ” UZIP” Herceg Novi
- Civic Alliance
- NVO “Briga Me”- Podgorica
- Dr Bojan Baća, sociologist
- NVO Montenegrin Society of Ecologists
- KANA / ko ako ne arhitekt
- Media Union of Montenegro
- NVO Sparta Crna Gora
- NVO Link
- NVO Program za životnu sredinu – EnvPro
- NVO Institute Alternative
- NVO CEGAS
- Udruženje Korina
- Centre for Democratic Transition – CDT
- NVO Buše
- NVO Ipso Facto