Abaco contributes to the Draft Law on Safety of Navigation
April 15, 2025.
Abaco contributes to the Draft Law on Safety of Navigation
Source: https://www.pexels.com/
As part of the public consultation process, Abaco submitted detailed Comments, Proposals and Suggestions on the Draft Law on Safety of Navigation (the “Draft Law”). As a firm with over three decades of legal expertise in maritime law, we are proudly positioned to contribute to the development of a legal framework that is clear, enforceable, and fully aligned with international maritime standards.
Abaco submitted contributions in their own name but also had a chapter in the submission of the Montenegrin Maritime Law Association – MMLA, being its member and the founder.
Some parts of the Draft Law raised concerns and provoked our specific comments and suggestions. In particular:
Missing initial consultations in preparation of the Draft Law, complete lack of transition, final and penal provisions in the Draft Law
Contrary to the provisions of the Law on State Administration and the Regulation on the Selection of NGO Representatives in Working Bodies of State Administration Authorities and on Conducting Public Consultations in the Preparation of Laws and Strategies, the competent Ministry of Maritime Affairs failed to conduct initial consultations prior to commencing the preparation of the Draft Law.
Furthermore, the publication of an incomplete draft law constitutes a breach of the aforementioned legislation. Accordingly, ABACO has proposed that the Draft Law be withdrawn, completed, and subsequently submitted for a new round of public consultation.
Unexplained and unaddressed reasons for consolidating three distinct areas into a single legal framework (maritime navigation law, inland navigation law and yachts law)
The Draft Law and its Explanatory note lack a clear explanation for merging three existing maritime-related laws into one, raising concerns about its scope and coherence, especially where it regulates obligations not intended to be part of the Draft Law. Since obviously the intention of the law Drafters was not to create a Maritime Code of Montenegro, Abaco suggested withdrawing the Draft Law and amending the existing Law on Maritime Safety, Law on Yachts, and adopting a Law on Inland Navigation, while simultaneously forming a working group to prepare a comprehensive Maritime Code.
Given the complexity and importance of such legislation, Abaco recommended that Montenegro seek technical support from the European Maritime Safety Agency and EU member states, particularly Croatia, to ensure alignment with European standards and best practices.
An unclear distinction resulting in confusion between the three types of international jurisdictions applicable to Montenegro (Flag State, Coastal State and Port State jurisdiction)
Abaco noted that the Draft Law fails to distinguish Montenegro’s three types of maritime jurisdiction—Flag State, Port State, and Coastal State - as defined by UNCLOS and IMO conventions, leaving obligations for ships flying the Montenegrin flag in international waters largely unaddressed.
Key provisions, such as Article 93 of the Draft Law, incorrectly assign exclusive authority for assessing ship seaworthiness to Recognized Organizations, overlooking the primary responsibilities of the flag state administration.
To ensure compliance with international maritime law, the Draft Law shall clearly regulate the safety of all Montenegrin-flagged vessels, including those in international navigation, and establish proper supervision and implementation mechanisms aligned with Montenegro’s international obligations.
Ship nomenclature and other issues related to terminology and legislative drafting
The Draft Law defines a seagoing ship as any craft intended primarily for navigation at sea or its connected navigable waters, having a length over 12 meters or authorized to carry more than 12 passengers. Unlike previous definitions, gross tonnage of the ship is not used as a primary technical criterion, although vessels over 12 meters in length and over 15 GT are considered ships regardless of passenger capacity.
Abaco referenced Montenegrin legislation, which already provides a clear definition of a seagoing ship - requiring a minimum length of 12 meters and a gross tonnage of at least 15 BT (per MINA and the current Law on Safety of Maritime Navigation) - and suggested aligning the wording of the Draft Law accordingly.
Yacht regulations
We were particularly surprised by the fact that the Draft Law specifically addresses yachts and removes them from the scope of the existing Law on Yachts. Consequently, we paid close attention to how the Draft Law treats yachts. Several of its provisions could potentially undermine the competitiveness of Montenegro’s Yacht Registry and hinder the development of nautical tourism.
Definition and categorization
The Draft raises the length threshold for yachts from 7 to 12 meters, reclassifying many existing yachts as boats. This would force their removal from the Yacht Registry, downgrade their navigation rights, and ultimately discourage owners from maintaining Montenegrin registration. It should be noted that majority of existing yachts registered in the Montenegrin Registry does not exceed 12 meters length.
Mandatory registration
As a response to Article 147 of the Draft Law which stipulates that the yacht owned by domestic natural or legal persons may be registered in the Montenegrin Registry, we proposed making registration mandatory for yachts owned by Montenegrin companies and citizens, while still allowing the registration of foreign-owned yachts. Liberalizing these rules prematurely would only weaken the national Registry, especially as domestic owners would turn to foreign registries offering lower costs, digitalized procedures, and fewer administrative burdens. Such liberalization would potentially sense only once Montenegro joins the EU.
Terminology corrections
The Draft Law deepens the existing ambiguity regarding terms bareboat charterer, unajmitelj and iznajmljivac, especially given that the yacht charter agreement (Ugovor o najmu jahte) is not yet regulated in the Montenegrin legal system. We consider that, in any case, the Law on Safety of Navigation is not the proper instrument for regulating that matter. The Montenegrin maritime law (MINA 1998) uses the term zakupac, not unajmitelj. We proposed corrections across Articles 147, 148, and related provisions to reflect consistent, non-discriminatory terminology throughout the Draft Law. Similarly, the use of the English term surveyor is unnecessary and should be replaced with “authorized inspector.”
Charter activity and cabotage
Article 167 and related provisions on yacht charter are outdated and inconsistent with the Law on Tourism and Hospitality. They would perpetuate the “black charter” problem by discouraging legal operations. We proposed a modern framework:
-Montenegrin-flagged yachts for commercial use may be chartered only through domestic entities.
-Foreign-flagged yachts may charter in Montenegro only with cabotage permits and appointment of a tax representative to ensure VAT and profit tax are paid.
-Detailed rules on charter activities, with or without crew, should be set by by-law, following EU and regional practice (notably Croatia’s Maritime Code).
Fees and technical control
We recommended that yacht-related fees (Article 164) be regulated by secondary legislation, given their variable nature. We also argued that technical supervision should be limited to authorized inspectors empowered to conduct surveys, not to issue registration certificates, in order to prevent uncontrolled privatization of registry functions.
To summarize, if adopted in its current form, the Draft Law could have a significant negative effect to maritime commerce and create many legal gaps and problems in practice. It could also lead the Montenegrin Yacht Register to its extinction, discourage both domestic and foreign yacht owners, and reduce fiscal revenues. Our proposals aim to modernize the framework, ensure constitutional and international legal compliance, and position of Montenegro as a competitive and attractive nautical destination.
We are especially proud and grateful for the prompt and proactive response of MMLA members during the public consultation process. We are confident that contributions of MMLA, along with submission of Abaco, had a significant impact to the legislative process and effectively prevented immature or incorrect legislative solutions from being adopted into law.
We are pleased to note that the drafting authority, namely the Ministry of Maritime Affairs, has duly taken into account and accepted our comments and suggestions, which will result in a more coherent, higher-quality, and practically applicable legislative text once the law enters into force.
We also hope that this example encourages other maritime stakeholders to actively participate in shaping legislation, sharing their expertise, and contributing to a stronger, clearer, and more forward-looking legal framework.