Quick answer
The Budva municipal slice contains 14 active rows in the supplied extract.
The workbook contains no explicit paragliding, paraglider or tandem term.
Blank activity-subtype fields and generic names make exact identity matching essential.
Budva provider evidence
A Budva tandem offer should lead to an exact registered identity
The reviewed CTR extract has 14 active Budva rows, but none visibly identifies paragliding or tandem activity.
- Budva context
- Practical fit
- Clear next step
Quick answer
In the Central Tourism Register extract reviewed on 7 September 2026, the relevant broad service class contains 14 active Budva rows. None of the visible object or subject fields identifies paragliding, a paraglider or tandem activity. This is a dated register observation, not proof that no generic underlying record could cover the activity: a conclusion about a named provider requires its exact legal name or registry identifier and the underlying CTR record.
The reviewed CTR extract has 14 active Budva rows, but none visibly identifies paragliding or tandem activity.
Quick answers
More checks before the next step
What does the Budva slice show?
It contains 14 active rows in the relevant broad class. None visibly names paragliding, a paraglider or tandem activity.
Does that prove that no registered Budva provider exists?
No. The export leaves activity-subtype fields blank and includes generic object or subject names. A named conclusion requires the provider's exact legal identity and the underlying record.
Is a tandem-pilot credential the same as provider registration?
No. A pilot credential concerns the person flying. It does not identify the registered tourism subject behind a paid public offer or prove authority for a particular take-off or landing place.
Does VASP answer the commercial provider question?
No. VASP is a separate outside-aerodrome take-off and landing question. It does not establish CTR registration or the provider status behind a paid public tandem offer.
More detail
What was checked
The source was the supplied Pregled registra.xlsx extract from Montenegro’s
Central Tourism Register. It contains 86 active records in the broad form for
tourism services involving sports-recreational and adventure activities and
rafting. Fourteen of those records are assigned to Budva.
Across the workbook, the visible fields contain no exact match for
paraglajd, paragliding, paraglider or tandem. The workbook reviewed here
has SHA-256
879dd19c68c04872a9604dea1c59ebbbb2712c3e213c6c47c08907e5c52c13ce.
The official CTR description explains the role of the public tourism register. The official tourism-law FAQ places tandem paragliding within sports-recreational and adventure tourism services.
What the result means
The extract does not visibly identify paragliding or tandem activity in its Budva rows. A public brand, website name or social profile is not automatically the same as the legal subject name stored in a register.
That is why the useful next check is exact, not rhetorical:
- ask for the provider’s exact legal name or registry identifier;
- match it to the public CTR record;
- inspect whether the underlying record covers the activity being offered;
- keep pilot qualification and documentary authority for the proposed take-off and landing places as separate evidence.
What the result does not mean
It does not prove that every paid tandem in Budva is unlawful. The export leaves
Kategorija and Vrsta objekta blank and includes generic or blank names, so an
underlying record could contain detail that the spreadsheet does not expose.
It also does not prove that a pilot or a site is approved. CTR evidence answers the provider-registration question; pilot documents and site authority need their own sources.
VASP stays separate
VASP concerns a take-off and landing outside an aerodrome in the facts of a particular operation. It does not prove or disprove the tourism registration of the provider behind a commercial tandem offer.
For the Montenegro-wide evidence chain, continue to the national commercial tandem evidence page linked below.
Community expert assessment
Members of the paragliding community reviewed the supplied CTR extract and the separate provider, pilot and site-evidence chain. In the reviewed Budva material, no legalized commercial tandem-paragliding operator was identified with a complete, traceable chain across those elements. This is a community expert assessment, not an ACV decision, court finding or inspection result. A conclusion about a named provider still requires its exact legal identity and documents.
Source observation: 7 September 2026. Community expert and editorial review: 8 September 2026. Approved for controlled indexation; this page is not a provider directory or a legal opinion about any named person or business.
Budva gallery media
