Families dealing with an accident abroad ask what the claim is worth. In Montenegro the prior question is what form the award takes, because the statute answers that first and the answer is not the one most foreign claimants expect. It also contains a provision that converts the default into a lump sum — but only on a condition that has to be engineered rather than assumed.
Article numbers below are from a consolidated text of the Zakon o obligacionim odnosima including the most recent amending act — chain "Službeni list CG" br. 047/08 of 07.08.2008, 004/11 of 18.01.2011, 022/17 of 03.04.2017 and 123/24 of 23.12.2024 — read on 5 September 2026. General information, not advice on a particular claim.
The default: an annuity, paid monthly, for life
Article 195(1) states it directly: in the case of death, bodily injury or impairment of health, compensation is determined as a rule in the form of a monetary annuity (novčana renta), for life or for a defined period.
Article 195(2) requires that annuity to be paid monthly in advance, unless the court orders otherwise.
For a claimant living abroad, that default is a practical problem before it is a legal one. A monthly, lifelong entitlement against a Montenegrin defendant means a decades-long collection relationship across a border, with currency, banking and enforcement questions attached to every payment.
The provision that converts it into a lump sum
The statute anticipates exactly that problem, and it does so in two steps that have to be run in order.
Article 195(3) gives the creditor the right to demand appropriate security for payment of the annuity, unless in the circumstances of the case that would not be justified.
Article 195(4) then supplies the consequence: if the debtor does not provide the security the court determines, the creditor has the right to demand that a single total sum be paid instead of the annuity — its amount fixed according to the level of the annuity and the probable duration of the creditor's life, with the corresponding deductions.
Read together, the route to a capital sum is not an election. It runs through a demand for security under Article 195(3) and the debtor's failure to provide what the court orders. A claimant who never asks for security has not opened the door that Article 195(4) unlocks.
What is payable when someone dies
Article 200(1) obliges whoever causes a death to compensate the usual costs of the funeral. Article 200(2) adds the costs of treating the injuries sustained, other necessary costs connected with that treatment, and the earnings lost through incapacity for work — that is, the losses that accrued between the injury and the death.
Article 201(1) carries the head that matters most to a family, and its scope is wider than a strict dependency test. A right to compensation for the loss of maintenance or assistance belongs to:
- a person whom the deceased maintained;
- a person whom the deceased regularly assisted; and
- a person who had a statutory right to claim maintenance from the deceased.
The second limb reaches people who were supported in fact without any legal duty; the third reaches people who had the legal right but were not being paid. Neither depends on being an heir.
Article 201(2) sets the form and the ceiling: the damage is compensated by payment of a monetary annuity, assessed on all the circumstances of the case, and the amount may not exceed what the injured party would have received from the deceased had they remained alive. That cap is why the evidence in these claims is documentary rather than argumentative — what was actually provided, and what the statutory maintenance entitlement would have produced, sets the outer limit.
The relationship between the Article 201 maintenance claim and the maintenance rules themselves is not academic: the third limb sends you into the Family Act to establish whether a statutory maintenance right existed at all, and if so on what basis, which is the analysis we set out in child maintenance across a border.
What is payable when someone survives
Article 202(1) obliges a person who inflicts bodily injury or impairs another's health to compensate the costs of treatment, other necessary costs connected with it, and the earnings lost through incapacity for work during the treatment.
Article 202(2) deals with the permanent consequences, and its list is broader than lost earnings. An annuity is payable where the injured person:
- loses earnings because of total or partial incapacity for work;
- has needs that are permanently increased; or
- has the possibilities of further development and advancement destroyed or reduced.
That third limb is the one foreign advisers most often miss. It is not a claim for lost earnings already suffered, and it is not a general "loss of amenity" head. It compensates the closing-off of a career or developmental trajectory, and it stands on its own in the statute.
The three heads side by side
| Death (Arts. 200–201) | Survival with injury (Art. 202) | |
|---|---|---|
| Who claims | The person who bore the funeral and treatment costs; separately, the person the deceased maintained or regularly assisted, or who had a statutory right to maintenance from them | The injured person |
| Accrued losses | Funeral costs, treatment costs and other necessary related costs, earnings lost before death (Art. 200) | Treatment costs, other necessary related costs, earnings lost during treatment (Art. 202(1)) |
| Continuing loss | Annuity for the loss of maintenance or assistance, capped at what the claimant would have received had the deceased lived (Art. 201(2)) | Annuity for lost earnings, permanently increased needs, or destroyed or reduced prospects of development and advancement (Art. 202(2)) |
| Form | Annuity as a rule (Art. 195(1)), monthly in advance (Art. 195(2)) | Annuity as a rule, same terms |
| Reviewable later | Yes — Art. 203, in both directions | Yes — Art. 203, in both directions |
Awards are not final
Article 203 keeps every annuity open in both directions. The court may, on the injured party's application, increase the annuity for the future; and it may, on the tortfeasor's application, reduce or abolish it — in each case where the circumstances the court had in mind when making the earlier decision change significantly.
For a claimant that means a serious deterioration is not a closed chapter. For a defendant it means an annuity fixed on a temporary incapacity is not a permanent liability. It also means neither side should treat the first judgment as the end of the file.
The annuity is personal, and mostly cannot be assigned
Article 204(1) is precise about what it makes untransferable, and the precision matters: the right to compensation in the form of a monetary annuity, arising from the death of a close person or from bodily injury or impairment of health, cannot be transferred to another person.
Article 204(2) carves out the only exception: amounts already due may be transferred, but only where the amount of compensation has been fixed either by a written agreement of the parties or by a final court decision.
Two consequences follow for a cross-border file. A funder or assignee cannot take the annuity right itself; and until the sum is fixed by written agreement or judgment, even accrued instalments are not freely assignable. Structuring around the claim — rather than through the claimant — does not work here, and any funding arrangement has to be built on that basis from the start.
One neighbouring head worth knowing exists
The same part of the statute contains a provision that is not about accidents at all but is frequently relevant to the same clients. Article 205(1) makes a person liable for material damage caused by injuring another's honour, or by stating or passing on untrue assertions about another's past, knowledge, ability or anything else, where they know or ought to know the assertions are untrue.
Article 205(2) contains the defence: a person who makes an untrue statement about another without knowing it is untrue is not liable, if they, or the person to whom the statement was made, had a serious interest in it. That is a narrow and conditional protection rather than a general good-faith defence, and it turns on a "serious interest" that has to be shown rather than asserted.
Articles 206 and 207 then frame the personality-rights regime that sits behind the non-pecuniary heads: Article 206(1) gives a natural person full protection of personality, Article 206(2) gives a legal person protection of those personality rights that do not arise from the natural attributes of a human being, and Article 206(3) provides that the protection prescribed by this Act is a minimum that cannot be restricted by a special law. Article 207 lists the rights themselves, beginning with the right to life, physical integrity, psychological integrity, liberty, honour and reputation.
The reduction that applies across all of it
Article 199(1) provides that an injured party who contributed to the damage arising, or to its being greater than it would otherwise have been, is entitled only to proportionately reduced compensation.
Article 199(2) covers the evidential problem that usually accompanies it: where it is impossible to establish which part of the damage stems from the injured party's own conduct, the court awards compensation taking account of the circumstances of the case. The impossibility of apportionment does not defeat the claim; it moves the question to the court's assessment.
Where this sits with the rest of the claim
Three other layers decide outcomes in these files and are dealt with separately.
The non-pecuniary heads — pain, fear, reduction of life activity, and the claims of close relatives — are a distinct part of the statute, and we set them out in non-pecuniary damages.
The deadlines are unforgiving and run differently for different heads; they are in limitation periods for claims.
And where the cause is a road accident, the insurance layer sits on top of the ZOO rules and often determines who actually pays, which is set out in traffic accident claims for foreigners.
Before you accept a figure
If you are dealing with a death or a serious injury in Montenegro — as a family member, an executor, or an insurer's counterparty — the first documents that matter are not the medical ones. They are the evidence of what the deceased actually provided, or what the injured person actually earned and was on course to earn.
Send us the accident documentation, proof of what was being provided to whom, and any offer already made, and we will identify which of the Article 200, 201 and 202 heads are open, whether the Article 195(1) annuity default applies on these facts, what an Article 195(3) demand for security would need to look like to bring Article 195(4) into play, and where Article 199 exposure sits. How we run these files is set out in our compensation claims practice.
