Standfirst: Montenegro is the first EU candidate country expected to face new institutional safeguards, including a possible suspension of voting rights. The European Union is still negotiating its common position, but candidate countries are not being invited to submit formal negotiating positions on the safeguards themselves.
Montenegro’s accession process is entering a sensitive stage as EU member states consider tougher protections against future breaches of EU values and the principle of sincere cooperation. The proposed arrangements could apply for up to 15 years after a country joins the bloc and are being shaped partly by concerns arising from Hungary’s use of its veto power under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
What is the EU proposing?
Last month, the European Commission proposed a probation period for future members. The aim is to allow the EU to respond more quickly if a new member seriously violates the bloc’s fundamental principles or obstructs common decisions.
The safeguards could include measures such as:
- Restrictions linked to serious breaches of EU values;
- The possibility of suspending a member state’s voting rights in the most serious cases;
- Oversight arrangements that would give the European Commission an important role;
- A probation period lasting as long as 15 years after accession.
The proposal is not yet final law. It is being developed as part of the accession treaty framework, with EU governments now discussing a common position before the text is reflected in Montenegro’s treaty.
Why Montenegro is at the centre of the debate
Montenegro is the most advanced of the EU candidate countries and has spent more than a decade preparing for membership. Its public administration has invested significant resources in the accession process, while pro-European political forces have made membership a central objective.
That position gives Podgorica a strong incentive to continue negotiations, even though officials face new conditions that were not previously part of the process in their current form. The country is therefore attempting to influence the debate diplomatically rather than openly challenge the safeguards.
Unlike ordinary accession chapters, Montenegro is not being asked to submit a negotiating position on the institutional safeguards or meet a separate set of interim targets. Its choice is effectively to accept the framework proposed by the EU or risk undermining its path towards membership.
How this differs from normal accession negotiations
EU enlargement normally proceeds through negotiating chapters. A candidate country works to meet opening conditions, implements reforms and fulfils interim benchmarks. Once the requirements are satisfied, the European Union may provisionally close the chapter.
The institutional safeguards are being handled differently. The European Commission is preparing common positions under Chapters 34 and 35, which cover institutional issues and other matters linked to the final stages of accession. However, Montenegro is not being given the same opportunity to bargain over the substance of the safeguards.
This makes the process politically significant. The proposed rules would affect the rights of a country after it becomes an EU member, yet the candidate country has limited formal influence over their design before accession.
Three issues dividing EU governments
EU capitals are focusing on three central questions.
1. What measures should be available?
The most serious issue is whether the safeguards should allow the suspension of a member state’s voting rights. Such a step would have major consequences for the balance between national governments within the European Union and would go beyond the more limited safeguards used in previous enlargement treaties.
2. How long should safeguards last?
The proposed 15-year period is viewed by candidate countries as lengthy. Supporters argue that a longer period would give the EU time to ensure that reforms remain durable after accession. Critics question whether new members should face a prolonged period of unequal treatment compared with existing member states.
3. Who should make the decision?
The proposed governance model could give the European Commission significant influence over how the safeguards are applied. Some governments want a system that is legally clear, proportionate and tailored to each candidate country rather than a single framework applied without distinction.
Different views among member states
Italy, part of the Friends of the Western Balkans group, has argued for respect for the equality of member states and for measures that are proportionate and adapted to each country’s circumstances.
The Netherlands has supported a more uniform approach, favouring the same basic safeguards for all EU hopefuls. The contrast reflects a wider debate about how the EU can protect its rules without creating permanent categories of first- and second-class membership.
The discussion also illustrates the difference between a political demand for stronger protection and a legal mechanism that can be applied consistently. Any final text will need to define the thresholds, procedures and institutional responsibilities clearly.
What happens next?
The Irish presidency of the Council of the European Union is collecting member states’ views on the draft safeguards. A consolidated position is expected to be considered at ambassador level as early as next week.
Once EU countries agree their broader position, the European Commission is expected to incorporate it into Montenegro’s accession treaty. Montenegro’s most realistic opportunity to influence the outcome is therefore before the member states settle their common position, through diplomatic engagement with individual governments.
The process still involves further political and legal steps. The safeguards must be finalised as part of the accession framework, and Montenegro’s wider membership negotiations must continue through the normal enlargement process. The proposed arrangements do not mean that Montenegro is joining the EU immediately, nor that the country has accepted a completed treaty.
Why the safeguards matter for EU enlargement
The debate could establish a precedent for future accessions, including other Western Balkans candidates. It raises a fundamental question: should countries seeking membership be able to negotiate the conditions governing their rights after accession, or may the EU impose certain institutional protections as a condition of entry?
For the EU, the issue is linked to confidence in the rule of law, mutual trust and decision-making. For candidate countries, it concerns equal treatment and the rights they would receive once they become members.
For Ireland, the immediate issue is the role of its presidency in coordinating member states’ discussions. The wider implications concern how future enlargement is structured and how safeguards could affect the operation of EU institutions after new countries join.
Conclusion
The proposed EU membership safeguards remain under discussion, but Montenegro has little formal ability to negotiate their content. The next important step is the member states’ common position, after which the European Commission is expected to reflect the outcome in Montenegro’s accession treaty. The debate will shape not only Montenegro’s path towards membership but also the rules applied to future EU enlargement.