Montenegro strengthens competition regime to better match EU enforcement expectations

Montenegro’s competition overhaul is less about rewriting rules on paper and more about proving it can enforce them. As EU accession talks gather pace, authorities are moving toward a system designed to deliver faster decisions, clearer penalties and stronger institutional capacity—factors that can materially affect how markets operate and how investors assess regulatory risk.

The reform package centres on an upgrade to the legal and institutional framework that governs market behaviour, reflecting both domestic economic priorities and the country’s broader effort to align with EU competition standards. Montenegro has already put in place much of the relevant legal architecture, but ongoing EU assessments have continued to flag gaps in enforcement effectiveness.

Reworking the Law on Protection of Competition

At the heart of the initiative is the modernisation of the Law on Protection of Competition. Proposed amendments are intended to bring Montenegro closer to the EU acquis, with particular reference to the ECN+ Directive framework, which structures competition enforcement across member states.

The expected shift is structural rather than incremental. Authorities say they want to broaden the powers of the national competition authority, improve investigative tools and strengthen enforcement mechanisms—covering everything from evidence gathering and market inquiries to more effective corrective measures.

More autonomy—and direct fines—for the competition agency

A central element involves redefining how the Agency for Protection of Competition operates. Under the proposed approach, it would gain greater autonomy and direct sanctioning powers, including authority to impose fines for breaches of competition rules.

This would represent a move away from reliance on court-based misdemeanor procedures. From a business perspective, officials appear focused on reducing delays between an infringement being identified and sanctions being applied—an outcome that can increase legal certainty when markets are under scrutiny.

The reform also includes updates to procedural safeguards meant to align with EU expectations. These changes cover clearer rights for companies during investigations and more structured decision-making within the authority.

Merger control tightened alongside dominant-firm safeguards

The proposed amendments also address merger control and how market concentration is handled—issues viewed as particularly important in a small economy like Montenegro’s. Clarifications around turnover thresholds and notification requirements are meant to improve transparency and predictability for investors, especially in areas where consolidation is accelerating, including energy, telecoms and retail.

Alongside merger oversight, Montenegro’s framework continues to reinforce prohibitions on abuse of dominant position and anti-competitive agreements. The objective is sustained alignment with core EU principles governing pricing behaviour, market sharing arrangements and unfair commercial practices.

A competitiveness test tied to accession progress

Beyond legal alignment, authorities describe a broader economic goal: building a more competitive and transparent market environment capable of attracting investment while limiting distortions that can be more likely in smaller economies with limited competitive pressure.

This focus is particularly relevant where state-owned enterprises or dominant private players still exert significant influence. Stronger competition oversight is presented as a route toward improved efficiency, reduced barriers for new entrants and better consumer outcomes.

The reforms intersect directly with EU funding dynamics as well. Progress in competition policy falls under Chapter 8 of accession negotiations, described as a prerequisite for deeper integration into the EU single market and for accessing certain financial instruments linked to reform performance.

From legislative intent to enforceable credibility

The timing underscores an emphasis increasingly placed by Brussels on demonstrating implementation capacity rather than legislative intent. In this view, effective investigation, sanctioning and deterrence against anti-competitive conduct becomes a proxy for whether state institutions function credibly in practice.

Taken together, Montenegro’s emerging framework points toward a more rules-based and enforcement-driven market system. For companies operating in Montenegro, that implies heightened compliance demands covering mergers, pricing practices and day-to-day conduct. For investors considering capital allocation decisions as accession advances, officials’ aim appears twofold: sharper alignment with EU standards now—and greater predictability going forward.