Lenders arriving in Montenegro tend to reach for the one instrument they already understand — a mortgage over immovable property — and then discover the borrower's real value is somewhere else: receivables, equipment, a stake in an operating company, or a bank balance that moves. The statute that governs what else can be taken, and how quickly, is not a security law at all. It is the Enforcement and Security Act, and its second half is written for exactly this problem.
The text used here is the consolidated Zakon o izvršenju i obezbjeđenju, Službeni list Crne Gore nos. 036/11, 028/14, 020/15, 022/17, 076/17, 025/19 and 070/26 of 20 May 2026.
The four means of security the Act recognises
Article 254 is the list, and it is short:
| Means of security | What it is | When it is available |
|---|---|---|
| Pledge on immovables on the basis of an enforcement document | Judicial pledge obtained on a judgment or equivalent | After you hold an enforcement document |
| Pledge on immovables and movables by agreement of the parties | Consensual security created inside the enforcement framework | At any point the parties agree |
| Preliminary measures | Protective steps on a decision not yet final or enforceable | Art. 269 conditions |
| Interim measures | Protective steps pending or before proceedings | Separate conditions |
Two features of the list matter commercially. The second item means a lender does not have to wait for default and a judgment to obtain security through this route — the parties can agree it. And the third and fourth mean the Act provides protection before the creditor has a final, enforceable decision, which is normally the point at which assets start moving.
Article 255 sets the outer limit: security is not permitted over things and rights which, under this or another law, cannot be the subject of enforcement. Article 257 provides that the enforcement procedure rules apply to the security procedure mutatis mutandis unless the security chapter says otherwise — so the machinery, including what can be seized, is the machinery described in our enforcement guide.
Preliminary measures: security before the decision is final
This is the part of the Act most lenders do not know exists, and it is the most useful.
Article 269 allows a preliminary measure on the basis of a decision for a money claim which has not yet become final or has not yet become enforceable, provided the applicant makes probable the danger that without it the realisation of the claim would be frustrated or significantly hindered. It extends the same route to a settlement concluded before a court or an administrative body where the claim has not fallen due, and — separately — allows a preliminary measure on the basis of a payment order issued on a bill of exchange or cheque.
Article 270 then removes the evidential burden in three situations by presuming the danger. It is presumed where the proposal is based on:
- a payment order issued on a bill of exchange or cheque against which a timely objection has been filed;
- a judgment in a criminal matter upholding a property claim, against which reopening of the criminal proceedings is permitted;
- 🔴 a decision which would have to be enforced abroad.
The third limb is the one cross-border lenders should note. A creditor whose decision points at assets outside Montenegro does not have to argue about risk — the Act presumes it. That interacts directly with the recognition sequence described in our foreign judgment guide.
Article 272 lists what the court can actually order as a preliminary measure:
| Preliminary measure | Practical effect |
|---|---|
| Inventory of movables | Fixes what exists before it moves |
| Prohibition on the debtor's own debtor paying or delivering, and on the opponent collecting, receiving or disposing | Freezes the receivable at both ends |
| Prohibition on the bank paying out the amount covered by the measure | Freezes the account balance |
| Provisional registration of a pledge over the opponent's immovable, or over a right registered on it | Puts the security on the register |
| Seizure of shares or of stakes in a company | Reaches the holding rather than the operating assets |
The court may order two or more of these where the circumstances require it. The fifth is the one that most often reaches real value in a group structure, because the borrower's most valuable asset is frequently its participation in another company rather than anything on its own balance sheet.
Interim measures — wider reach, but they do not create a pledge
An interim measure is the fourth item in Article 254, and it differs from a preliminary measure in both its trigger and, critically, in what it leaves behind.
Article 287 allows an interim measure securing a money claim where the applicant makes probable both the existence of the claim and the danger that the opponent will frustrate or significantly hinder collection by alienating, concealing or otherwise disposing of its assets or funds. Two reliefs follow. Under Article 287(2) the applicant need not prove the danger at all where it makes probable that the measure would cause the opponent only negligible damage. And under Article 287(3) the danger is presumed where the claim would have to be realised abroad — the same cross-border presumption that Article 270 applies to preliminary measures.
Article 288 then permits any measure achieving the purpose, and names five in particular: a prohibition on disposing of movables together with their safekeeping; a prohibition on alienating or encumbering shares or stakes in a company, with the prohibition registered in the relevant register; a prohibition on alienating or encumbering immovables or registered rights in rem, with registration in the cadastre; prohibitions aimed at the debtor's own debtor and at the opponent's collection and disposal; and an order to the bank to withhold payment of the amount covered.
🔴 Then the sentence that decides how this instrument should be used: an interim measure does not create a pledge. It freezes; it does not rank. A creditor that wins the race to an interim measure has stopped the asset moving, but has not acquired the priority a pledge would give it in a later distribution — which is precisely why Article 272's provisional registration of a pledge, available as a preliminary measure, is the more valuable outcome where it is available.
For non-money claims, Article 289 requires a probable claim and danger, and also allows a measure where it is needed to prevent the use of force or the occurrence of irreparable damage. Article 290 lists the types, including prohibitions with registration in the cadastre and public registers, a prohibition on acts that could damage the applicant, and two employment-specific measures — payment of wage compensation during a dispute over the lawfulness of a dismissal, and reinstatement of the employee.
Article 291 gives the sharpest of these teeth: a decision ordering the measures in Article 288(1), (2), (3) and (5), and in Article 290(1), (2) and (3), has the effect of an enforcement order, and enforcement is deemed permitted by the making of that decision.
There is a cost to getting it wrong. The opponent has a right to compensation from the applicant for damage caused by an interim measure that is established to have been unfounded, or which the applicant does not justify.
How fast the procedure moves, and who runs it
Article 252: the security order is made by the court, and the security is carried out by the court or by a public enforcement officer, depending on the type and character of the dispute. The order must state the means of security, the reasons for granting the proposal, and whether an objection suspends enforcement of the order.
Article 253: an objection against the security order, or against a decision rejecting the proposal, is decided by a panel of the same court. It must be lodged within three days of service — shorter than the five days that apply in enforcement — and where a public enforcement officer is competent, it is served on that officer at the same time. The objection is not served for a reply, and it does not suspend enforcement of the security order unless the Act provides otherwise.
Three days, no reply, no suspension. The design assumption is speed, and it works in the applicant's favour.
Security that is not "security" but behaves like it
Two instruments sit outside Article 254 and still do the job, both because of how the Act treats them elsewhere.
A bank guarantee and a bill of exchange are both authentic documents under Article 25, which means each opens enforcement of a money claim without a judgment. The bill of exchange goes further: it is the only authentic document whose enforcement is not suspended by the debtor's objection, and on which the bank must block the account funds on the enforcement order. A lender that holds a properly executed bill of exchange holds something closer to security than to evidence.
Finance leasing has its own priority. Under Article 97 of the Zakon o stečaju, where bankruptcy proceedings are opened over a lessee, the finance lessor has a right to separate satisfaction and a right of priority over the leased object — a materially better position than the third-rank pro rata outcome most creditors face, as set out in our insolvency guide.
What this page does not cover, and one statute we could not open
Mortgages over immovable property are a separate statute and a separate mechanic — including the out-of-court sale route that surprises most foreign lenders — and are covered in our mortgage guide.
Montenegro also has a dedicated statute on pledges over movable property and rights, establishing a registered, non-possessory pledge — the instrument that would ordinarily govern security over equipment, inventory and receivables outside the enforcement framework. We were unable to obtain its consolidated text during the preparation of this page: the sources that carry the other statutes cited here returned nothing for it. We therefore cite no article numbers from it, and a lender structuring a registered pledge should have that statute read in the gazette rather than relying on a summary. Naming a provision we have not read would be the one thing worse than leaving the gap visible.
Everything else above was read in the consolidated texts named and checked on 26 August 2026.
Before you lend against Montenegrin assets
Four questions decide whether you are secured or merely optimistic. Is the borrower's value actually in immovable property, or in receivables, equipment and a stake in another company — because Article 272 reaches the last of these and a mortgage does not? Have you agreed a consensual pledge under Article 254 while the relationship is good, rather than planning to obtain a judicial one after default? Does the facility include a bill of exchange, given that it is the only instrument in the Act that survives the debtor's objection? And if the decision you expect to obtain will have to be enforced abroad, has anyone noted that Article 270 presumes the danger and opens preliminary measures without argument?
Send us the facility documents and a description of where the borrower's value actually sits, and we will tell you which of the Article 254 routes is available and what it will take to obtain it. This work sits in our enforcement and insolvency practice.
