Published: 25.09.2026. · HACCP

Montenegro's new Food Safety Law in 2026: what changes for restaurants, hotels and food producers

Publisher: ConsultHQ

Since May and June 2026, Montenegro has applied a new legal framework for food safety and official controls. The Food Safety Law (59/2026) sets out food business operators' responsibilities, HACCP, traceability and operating conditions. The Law on Official Controls (72/2026) governs how the competent authorities check compliance across the food chain.

For restaurants, hotels and producers, this does not mean HACCP became mandatory only in 2026.

HACCP, hygiene and traceability were part of the previous system. The 2026 change is broader: Montenegro replaced its previous Food Safety Law and introduced a separate horizontal law that brings official controls closer to the European Union model.

Businesses should therefore check more than whether they have HACCP documents. Their processes, records and data must also stand up to controls based on actual risk.

Two new laws form a connected system

The Food Safety Law, published in the Official Gazette of Montenegro No. 59/2026, was published on 4 May and entered into force on 12 May 2026. It replaced the previous Food Safety Law (57/15).

The Law on Official Controls, Official Gazette No. 72/2026, was published on 28 May and entered into force on 5 June 2026.

The two laws have different roles.

The Food Safety Law primarily sets out what a food business must meet.

The Law on Official Controls governs how the competent authority checks whether it actually does so.

The new framework brings Montenegro closer to European Union rules

The official explanation of the Law on Official Controls says it aligns with Regulation (EU) 2017/625, the EU's horizontal framework for official controls of food, feed, animal health and welfare, plant health and related areas.

This matters to Montenegrin businesses working with EU customers or preparing for obligations connected with future accession.

Official controls should no longer be seen only as an occasional inspection of premises.

The new law establishes a broader risk-based system involving documented procedures, laboratories, data exchange and cooperation among competent authorities.

HACCP remains mandatory: use the current article of the law

In the final text of the Food Safety Law (59/2026), HACCP is governed by Article 41.

It requires food business operators to establish, apply and continuously maintain HACCP-based procedures in the stages of production, processing and distribution after primary production and its associated operations.

The law also requires procedures to be updated when the product, process or stage of production changes.

Operators must be able to demonstrate compliance at the authority's request, keep documentation up to date and retain relevant records.

That is the practical difference between a HACCP folder and a working HACCP system.

The documents must match what employees actually do.

Not every facility needs the same volume of HACCP documentation

The new law retains a proportionate approach.

Where critical control points cannot be identified for a particular activity, the law provides for good hygiene practices. Documentation of HACCP activities should also be appropriate to the type and scale of the business.

This is especially relevant to smaller hospitality businesses.

A restaurant does not need an industrial HACCP package running to hundreds of pages simply to make its documentation look substantial.

It needs a system suited to its kitchen, menu, equipment and actual risks.

Responsibility for food safety remains with the business

The new law clearly places responsibility on the food business operator.

Within the activities it controls, a business must ensure that the relevant legal requirements are met and verify that they are applied.

An inspection does not “guarantee” that a company's products are safe.

Responsibility remains with the operator.

For a restaurant, that is the restaurant itself.

For a hotel, it is the hotel's food and beverage operation.

For a producer, it is the company that makes and places the product on the market.

Traceability must show where a product came from and where it went

Article 27 of the new Food Safety Law governs traceability.

An operator must have a system that identifies who supplied relevant food, raw materials or substances and to whom its products were delivered. This information must be available to the competent authority on request.

For food producers, this has a direct operational purpose.

If a problem affects a particular batch, the company needs to connect its supplier, production records and subsequent distribution.

For hotels and restaurants, the emphasis differs somewhat.

They need to be able to demonstrate the origin of relevant ingredients and connect them to an orderly purchasing and receiving process.

Food withdrawal should be planned before an incident occurs

If a company believes or has reason to believe that food it imported, produced, processed or distributed does not meet food safety requirements, the new law requires it to begin withdrawal when the product is no longer under its immediate control and to notify the competent authority.

If the product has already reached consumers, additional duties to inform them and recall the product may arise.

Producers should therefore check whether their withdrawal procedure works in practice.

A document labelled “Recall procedure” is not enough.

The system must provide the information needed to make a decision.

Registration and approval of facilities remain part of the framework

The new Food Safety Law requires production, processing and distribution to take place in registered facilities or, where the activity requires it, approved facilities.

For activities subject to registration, an application is submitted before operations begin. An activity requiring approval cannot start without the appropriate approval.

This deserves particular attention for new facilities, expanded activities, changes of location and significant process changes.

Transitional rules also apply to certain existing facilities, so each business should check its own status.

Official controls are expressly planned according to risk

This is one of the most practical messages of the Law on Official Controls.

Article 16 requires competent authorities to carry out regular controls on a risk basis and at an appropriate frequency. They take account of risks linked to the goods, the operator's activities, the place of business and other factors that may affect safety.

The law also takes account of past compliance and the results of operators' own checks.

That matters to business customers and partners.

Sound HACCP, orderly documentation and reliable internal checks are not simply preparation for one inspection day.

They contribute to the overall picture of a company's regulatory risk.

As a rule, an official control need not be announced

The Law on Official Controls expressly provides for official controls without prior notice, except where notice is necessary and justified by the nature of the control.

That changes how a business should prepare.

HACCP should not be “made ready for inspection”.

The facility should be ready during an ordinary working day.

Temperature records, traceability, hygiene procedures and staff responsibilities must function even when nobody expects a visit.

An official control may cover much more than HACCP documents

The new law allows controls of operators, their activities, equipment, vehicles, premises, surroundings and related documentation.

At the competent authority's request, an operator must provide access to premises and equipment, information systems, goods, documents and other relevant information.

This matters to companies that have digitised much of their control system.

An ERP, WMS or other information system may form part of the evidence.

There is no need to print everything again, but digital records must be accessible, understandable and reliable.

Restaurants should review practice, not just the HACCP folder

For a restaurant, the new framework means above all that HACCP and hygiene arrangements must reflect the real kitchen.

Particular attention should go to whether the HACCP plan is current, how ingredients are received and traced, records of relevant controls, hygiene and staff competence.

If a restaurant has changed its menu, equipment or way of working, it should review its existing HACCP procedures.

The new law expressly requires HACCP procedures to be updated when the product or process changes.

Hotels should check that one system works across all food and beverage outlets

For a hotel, the issue is rarely a single kitchen.

Central receiving, storage, buffets, à la carte restaurants, banquets and room service may use the same system in different ways.

Risk-based official controls make consistency across these areas more important.

If a central procedure says one thing while an outlet does another, an internal review should uncover that gap before an inspection.

Seasonal staff must also understand the procedures relevant to their own tasks.

Food producers should focus more closely on data and traceability

In food production, the key is being able to demonstrate control.

A company needs to connect raw materials, production processes, batches and subsequent product movements.

If a safety concern arises, the system should identify affected products and customers quickly enough to support action.

The new law should therefore be read alongside the applicable 2026 secondary rules on microbiological criteria, contaminants, lots, certain food types and other technical requirements. The Administration's official register lists those rules with Law 59/2026.

The two new laws are not the only changes from 2026

These two laws alone are not enough for operational compliance.

Montenegro also adopted a new Food Hygiene Regulation in 2026, along with rules on microbiological criteria, food-contact materials, contaminants, additives and other areas.

The laws set the framework.

Secondary rules provide many of the detailed technical requirements.

Changing only the heading of a HACCP document to “2026”, while leaving old procedures unreviewed, is therefore inadequate.

Penalty risk extends beyond the absence of HACCP

Article 119 of the current Food Safety Law provides fines of €500 to €20,000 for legal entities for a range of offences, including certain failures involving traceability, product withdrawal, hygiene, HACCP and facility status.

The Law on Official Controls separately provides penalties for operators who fail to allow access to premises, equipment, information systems or documents, or who fail to cooperate with the competent authority.

Penalties are not the main reason to put a system in order.

A product withdrawal, a halted process or a lost customer because the business cannot demonstrate control may be a much larger commercial problem.

What businesses should check after the 2026 changes

A company does not automatically need to rebuild its HACCP system from scratch.

It should first check whether its existing system fits the new regulatory framework and the way it actually operates.

Priorities include the facility's registration or approval status, a current HACCP system, traceability, withdrawal procedures, relevant records, staff responsibilities and the availability of documents for official controls.

Producers should also connect this review to technical rules applicable to their products.

Hotels and restaurants should pay particular attention to consistent application in everyday work.

A gap analysis is more useful than automatically writing a new system

A change in law does not mean all existing documents should be discarded.

Much of an established HACCP system may still be fully usable.

The task is to find where a new requirement, a changed process or an old document no longer match.

ConsultHQ can review the existing system through a regulatory and HACCP gap analysis against the Food Safety Law (59/2026), the Law on Official Controls (72/2026) and relevant secondary legislation.

The result should be clear: what can stay, what needs changing and what should take priority before the next official control.

Related services: HACCP implementation, HACCP gap analysis and HACCP for restaurants.

Official sources: Food Safety Law 59/2026; Law on Official Controls 72/2026; current food legislation.

← All articles