Legalization of illegal structures in Montenegro has become a prolonged and uncertain ordeal for many citizens. Since the introduction of the first legal framework for legalization in 2017, the process has often been hampered by institutional inadequacies, according to Željka Krivokapić-Milićević, the director of the Center for Legalization of Real Estate. She describes the situation as not just a procedural issue but a deeply frustrating reality for citizens caught between various bureaucratic hurdles.
Krivokapić-Milićević notes that the legal framework has frequently outpaced the institutions responsible for its implementation. Citizens often find themselves navigating a complex maze involving cadastral offices and local administrations, only to discover that their understanding of property legality was misguided. Many enter the process believing that possessing a property list guarantees legal status. Unfortunately, this is not the case; registration in the cadastre does not equate to legality, and the absence of encumbrances does not imply the existence of a building permit.
This realization often comes at inopportune moments, such as during property sales, inheritances, attempts to secure loans, or when involving the property in tourism activities. The ongoing struggle has led to a recurring paradox: although laws exist, the systems meant to enforce them are not equipped to support citizens effectively.
Changing Procedures and Increasing Frustration
The constantly shifting landscape of laws and procedures has added to the confusion. Krivokapić-Milićević explains that rules can change swiftly and without warning, creating an environment where what was once a standard practice can quickly become an exception. Citizens often find themselves acting as intermediaries, attempting to decipher inconsistent data from institutions that lack coordinated databases and clear communication.
This ongoing frustration is not due to a lack of willingness to comply with the law, but rather the complexities of understanding how to fulfill legal requirements. Those who have modified their properties over time, such as enclosing terraces or adding rooms, face particularly challenging situations. What may have been a natural response to family needs can become an identity crisis for the property during the legalization process. Many have questioned whether minor alterations could derail their entire legalization efforts.
The pressures of tight deadlines exacerbate these challenges. Citizens encounter legal terms that feel beyond their control, as the pace of resolution depends more on institutional capacity than individual circumstances. Cadastral offices and local administrations handle tens of thousands of cases, often with insufficient staff and frequent procedural changes.
Krivokapić-Milićević emphasizes, “A citizen cannot be faster than the system.” Yet, she stresses the need for a reform that does not place undue blame on public servants. Instead, she advocates for strengthening institutions by providing more personnel, clearer regulations, and stability.
Addressing the Needs of Vulnerable Citizens
The situation has particularly affected Montenegrin citizens living abroad and foreign property owners. Physical distance, short deadlines, and the necessity for personal appearances have made the legalization process both costly and stressful. Many of these individuals have been paying taxes for years, which amplifies feelings of injustice; the state recognizes their properties for tax purposes but fails to offer full legal security.
Krivokapić-Milićević highlights that the most vulnerable among them are often elderly citizens, families with a single home, and those who built during periods lacking planning documentation. For these individuals, legalization transcends profit; it represents dignity and security.
She draws a distinction between legalizing a luxury property built for profit and a family home constructed for living.
The recent announcement of new legal amendments brings cautious optimism. For the first time, there is an attempt, at least on a normative level, to address the concrete issues citizens have highlighted for years. Extending deadlines acknowledges the realities of life and administration, while clarifying the relationship between documentation and property identity seeks to alleviate fears of losing the process over technicalities.
Additionally, allowing previously verified documents to be reused offers financial relief. The opportunity to prove the status of properties not clearly visible in documentation via expert findings is a move towards restoring fairness in the system.
Krivokapić-Milićević underscores that enabling inheritance, divisions, and gifts within the closest family circle demonstrates an understanding that life cannot pause during administrative processes. This represents a crucial step towards ensuring that legalization ceases to be a barrier to life.
While optimistic about the changes, Krivokapić-Milićević remains realistic, noting that no law alone can resolve the problem. She stresses the necessity of stable procedures, consistent application of the law, inter-sector communication, and robust digitalization. Without these elements, even the best legislative changes may remain ineffective.
The future of legalization in Montenegro hinges on whether the government will establish a clear boundary moving forward. While past legalization efforts can serve as a basis for understanding, new construction without permits must face zero tolerance, robust oversight, and serious penalties.
The essence of the legalization issue in Montenegro rests on a fundamental question: do we want a system that provides citizens with clear rules and security, or one where individuals must navigate the complexities as best they can? The answer will not only be evident in the text of the law but in practice, determining whether citizens feel that regulations are a path forward rather than a trap. This matter extends beyond urban planning and law; it touches on trust, responsibility, and the maturity of society.
