Повторное приобретение (ponovno sticanje)

Примеры сценариев

Примеры сценариев приведены на английском языке.

• eligible — he qualifies for re-acquisition on the reduced Art 26 condition-set

  Art 26(1): a person who lost Montenegrin citizenship and acquired another State's citizenship may re-acquire it on at least ONE YEAR of legal continuous residence (vs Art 8's ten) — he has 14 months (ME-ASSERT-068). Art 26(2) requires only Art 8(1) items 1 (18+), 2 (release from the foreign citizenship) and 7 (no security obstacle); items 3,4,5,6,8 are NOT re-tested (ME-ASSERT-069). His willingness to release US citizenship satisfies item 2; subject to the security screen, he qualifies.

• not eligible (as a dual national) — Art 26(2) requires release from the foreign citizenship; she must renounce Australian to re-acquire

  Art 26(2) imports Art 8(1) item 2: the re-acquisition application is REJECTED unless the applicant is released from the foreign citizenship (ME-ASSERT-069). Re-acquisition is NOT a dual-citizenship device. The only statutory escape from the release requirement is an Art 18(2) reciprocal bilateral treaty, which is currently hollow (no nationality-regulating treaty in force; ME-ASSERT-078). Australia is not a non-releasing State, so no Art 8(2) carve-out applies — she must surrender Australian citizenship for a positive decision.

• conditional — he may proceed via the Art 8(2) carve-out on a renunciation statement where formal release is legally unavailable

  Art 26(2) tests whether Art 8(1) item 2 is met, and item 2 is defined inclusive of its Art 8(2) carve-outs (moderate/liberal reading): release 'does not apply' where the applicant is stateless, where his country will not release him, or where release is conditioned on impossible terms — on signing a renunciation statement. So a re-acquirer from a non-releasing State may proceed on a renunciation declaration rather than an impossible formal release, plus the one-year residence (satisfied) and item 7 security screen. Outcome conditional on the authority accepting the carve-out.

• not eligible (yet) — he has not completed the one-year legal continuous residence

  Art 26(1) conditions re-acquisition on at least ONE YEAR of legal and continuous residence in Montenegro, measured under the Art 17 bylaw criteria (ME-ASSERT-068). Six months is short of that minimum, so the application would be premature. He must complete a full unbroken year of lawful residence (ordinary short absences tolerated per the Odluka o kriterijumima / Constitutional Court gloss) before filing, and will still need to satisfy the item-2 release and item-7 security conditions.

• not eligible (under Art 26) — the route's entry gate requires that she have acquired a foreign citizenship, which she has not

  Art 26's entry gate is conjunctive: the applicant must have LOST Montenegrin citizenship AND ACQUIRED another State's citizenship (ME-ASSERT-068; conservative-tier reading). A currently-stateless former citizen does not satisfy the second limb, so Art 26 does not reach her. Her case falls under different provisions (the stateless-naturalisation logic of Art 14 / the Art 40 determination), not re-acquisition — re-pin her to ME-SPC-02 or ME-SUC-01 rather than ME-RST-01.

• not eligible — the application is rejected on the Art 8(1) item 7 security/defence obstacle, but the refusal is reviewable

  Art 26(2) expressly imports Art 8(1) item 7: the re-acquisition application is REJECTED if there is an obstacle on grounds of the security and defence of Montenegro, assessed under the Art 17 bylaw / Art 6 security grounds (ME-ASSERT-069/044). On the balanced reading the screen is a reasoned, reviewable assessment, not an unfettered veto: the MUP must give reasons (Art 29(3)) and an upravni spor lies before the Administrative Court (Art 29(4)); by the U-III 687/21 principle the court can scrutinise the security assessment itself.