Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Montenegro: key considerations

Notable progress has been made in streamlining the process. In line with the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law, the Arbitration Act provides limited and clear grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement. The jurisdiction is well-defined, with the Commercial Court handling first-instance cases and the Appellate Court overseeing appeals. The relevant laws also provide good guidance on a range of issues, including which assets can be subject to enforcement and the limitations on invoking state sovereignty when enforcement is sought against state-owned assets.

However, delays in the judicial process, overly formalistic court approaches, and procedural ambiguities still hinder efficient recognition and enforcement. For example, the Constitutional and Supreme Courts differ in how they understand the availability of extraordinary remedies in recognition and enforcement cases. Additionally, there is uncertainty regarding how broadly Montenegrin courts interpret "public policy" (ordre public) as grounds for refusal.

For companies seeking swift enforcement, careful navigation of procedural ambiguities and potential delays is essential. However, as Montenegrin judges continue to gain practical experience and refine their understanding of core arbitration principles, procedural clarity and efficiency in the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards are bound to improve. This evolution will bolster Montenegro's arbitration landscape, positioning it as an increasingly reliable and attractive jurisdiction for arbitration.

author: Vasilije Grgurevic