Predsednik Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije Ivica Dačić sazvao je Četrdesetprvi redovni sastanak Kolegijuma Narodne skupštine Dvanaestog saziva za utorak, 7. septembar 2021. godine, sa početkom u 9.00 časova.

Predsednik Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije Ivica Dačić sazvao je Trinaesto vanredno zasedanje Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije u Dvanaestom sazivu za ponedeljak, 13. septembar 2021. godine, sa početkom u 10.00 časova.

Predsednik Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije Ivica Dačića sazvao je Jedanaesto vanredno zasedanje Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije u Dvanaestom sazivu za utorak, 7. septembar 2021. godine, sa početkom u 10.00 časova.

Dnevni red sednice određen je u zahtevu 237 narodnih poslanika:

1. Predlog zakona o zaštiti potrošača, koji je podnela Vlada;

2. Predlog zakona o potvrđivanju Sporazuma između Vlade Republike Srbije i Vlade Kraljevine Maroko o saradnji u oblasti odbrane, koji je podnela Vlada;

3. Predlog zakona o potvrđivanju Sporazuma između Vlade Republike Srbije i Vlade Ruske Federacije o osnivanju i uslovima delatnosti kulturno-informativnih centara, koji je podnela Vlada;

4. Predlog zakona o potvrđivanju Okvirnog sporazuma o zajmu LD 2070 (2020) između Banke za razvoj Saveta Evrope i Republike Srbije za projektni zajam - Studentsko stanovanje, koji je podnela Vlada;

5. Predlog zakona o potvrđivanju Amandmana na Montrealski protokol o supstancama koje oštećuju ozonski omotač, koji je podnela Vlada;

6. Predlog zakona o potvrđivanju Sporazuma između Vlade Republike Srbije i Vlade Savezne Republike Nemačke o saradnji u oblasti odbrane, koji je podnela Vlada;

7. Predlog zakona o potvrđivanju Sporazuma između Vlade Republike Srbije i Kabineta ministara Ukrajine o izmenama Sporazuma između Vlade Republike Srbije i Kabineta ministara Ukrajine o ukidanju viza za njihove državljane, koji je podnela Vlada;

8. Predlog odluke o izboru viceguvernera Narodne banke Srbije, koji je podnela guverner Narodne banke Srbije;

9. Predlog odluke o izmenama Odluke o izboru članova i zamenika članova odbora Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije, koji je podnela Poslanička grupa „Aleksandar Vučić - za našu decu“ i

10. Predlog odluke o izmenama Odluke o izboru članova i zamenika članova odbora Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije, koji je podnela Poslanička grupa „Aleksandar Vučić - za našu decu“.

Sednica će biti održana u Domu Narodne skupštine, Trg Nikole Pašića 13.

Since the adoption of the Constitution in 2006, the need for constitutional revision was discussed. There was even a popular initiative on the subject. Given that the country is on the European integration path, the harmonization of national law with the acquis communautaire requires, among other things, a reform in the field of justice. Hence, on December 4th 2020 the Serbian Government submitted a Constitutional Amendment Proposal, which refers to the regulation of the judiciary and the constitutional provisions in that regard.

On May 6th 2021, the Committee on Constitutional Issues and Legislation determined that the proposal was submitted by an authorized proposer. Except by the Government, this proposal can be submitted by 150,000 citizens, one third of MPs and the President of the Republic. The constitutional amendment proposal was presented to the National Assembly on June 7th, which decided with a two-thirds majority to proceed with the change of the Constitution. This is the first phase in the constitutional revision procedure, because the Constitutional Amendment Act is yet to be considered, adopted and drafted. The Government's proposal should be distinguished from the Constitutional Amendment Act because the latter is based on that proposal and precisely formulates the amendment subject. This act is drafted by the Committee on Constitutional Issues and Legislation. However, on this occasion, the Committee formed a Work Group to draft it. At its first meeting, the Work Group stated that they will go beyond the Government’s proposal and consider the conclusions made at the public hearings held by the Committee after the constitutional revision procedure began. The expert public took a critical stance on judicial reform solutions even during the preparation of the Government's proposal, so it is to be expected that the Work Group will take these opinions into account as well.

The question may arise here as to whether the public hearings, organized after the initiation of the procedure, are sufficient to meet the objectives of the public debate on the constitutional revision. Although the importance of public hearings should not be diminished, a public hearing will fulfill its purpose only if citizens and the expert public are given the opportunity to express their views on the act they’re supposed to decide on. Hence, the public debate should be organized after the Assembly Committee drafts the Constitutional Amendment Act. During the same phase, this act should be sent to the Venice Commission, for expert evaluation. Although there was talk that the Venice Commission was aware of the content during the preparation of the Government's proposal to change the Constitution (that is, that it noted the proposal), the fact is that the Constitutional Amendment Act that citizens will decide on was not officially considered by this advisory body. Moreover, the Government's proposal and the Constitutional Amendment Act do not necessarily have to coincide. The National Assembly does decide on the change of those constitutional provisions initiated by the proposer, but as the Assembly is the holder of the constitutional power, it can draft the act independently.

After the completion of all the aforementioned actions, the National Assembly will discuss in the plenum and make a decision on the Constitutional Amendment Act by a two-thirds majority of all MPs. However, the constitutional revision procedure does not end here. The provisions in question regulate government organization and therefore must be put to a constitutional referendum.

The constitutional referendum is regulated in a relaxed manner. The reason for that can be found in the revision procedure of the previous Constitution (1990), which could be changed in a referendum only by a majority of half of all citizens registered to vote. This rigid condition led to the referendum for the adoption of the Constitution in 2006 lasting two days in order to secure the necessary referendum majority. From the very beginning, cracks were starting to show in the legitimacy foundation of the highest general legal act of the first independent Republic. It is not common for a referendum to last more than one day - especially in a country with a relatively small number of voters and a territory that does not require special technical conditions for voting stages.

In order to prevent the difficulties caused by the rigid procedure of the previous Constitution, the new Constitution (2006) not only reduced the referendum majority, but also omitted the so-called referendum quorum. The decision on the constitutional amendment is made by the majority of citizens who vote for the amending act, regardless of the number of voters that went to the referendum. Therefore, in the national law of Serbia, the constitutional referendum will be legally valid even if the majority of registered voters do not participate, which raises the question of the legitimacy of the highest general legal act in case of low turnout. In the formal sense, for a positive referendum decision, it is enough to get a larger number of votes that support the Amendment Act compared to those who voted against. The decision will be made regardless of the size of the majority in relation to the total number of citizens with the right to vote (for example, one half or one quarter of the registered voters is not required).

Given this constitutional rule, citizens should be active in the referendum process. For those who do not agree with the amendments, it is not enough to abstain and not respond to the referendum call. When there is no mandatory turnout threshold for a referendum to be successful, it is pivotal for citizens to express their views with an explicit answer if they oppose a constitutional revision.

It remains to be seen how big the turnout will be and how will that affect the legitimacy of the Constitutional Amendment Act. The short Serbian constitutional history since introducing the multi-party system in the nineties is filled with constitutional acts that were disputed because of lack of legitimacy. Such was the case of the 1990 Constitution of Serbia adopted by the socialist Assembly just before the first multi-party elections were held, then the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1992, adopted by the Federal Assembly of the socialist Federation without quorum because the delegations of self-proclaimed republics have previously withdrawn from it, all to the current Constitution adopted in 2006 without a public hearing on a referendum that lasted for two days.

Irena Pejić, phd

Tenured professor at Faculty of Law, University of Niš

Od donošenja Ustava 2006. godine bilo je različitih najava o potrebi ustavne revizije, uključujući i jednu narodnu inicijativu. S obzirom da je država na putu evrointegracija, usklađivanje nacionalnog prava sa pravnim tekovinama Evropske unije zahteva, između ostalog, reformu u oblasti pravosuđa. Otuda je Vlada Republike Srbije podnela predlog za promenu Ustava 4. decembra 2020. godine koji se odnosi na uređenje pravosuđa i ustavne odredbe u vezi sa tim.

Odbor za ustavna pitanja i zakonodavstvo utvrdio je 6. maja 2021. godine da je predlog podnet od strane ovlašćenog predlagača jer predlog može, pored Vlade, podneti 150.000 građana, jedna trećina narodnih poslanika i predsednik Republike. Predlog za promenu Ustava iznet je pred Narodnu skupštinu 7. juna i ona je dvotrećinskom većinom donela odluku da se pristupi promeni Ustava. Ovo je prva faza u postupku ustavne revizije, jer tek sledi izrada akta o promeni Ustava i njegovo razmatranje i usvajanje. Vladin predlog treba razlikovati od akta za promenu Ustava jer ovaj drugi precizno formuliše predmet ustavne revizije na temelju Vladinog predloga i njega sastavlja Odbor za ustavna pitanja i zakonodavstvo. Međutim, Odbor je ovom prilikom obrazovao Radnu grupu za izradu akta o promeni Ustava koja se na svom prvom sastanku izjasnila da će raditi ne samo na osnovu predloga i obrazloženja Vlade, već i na temelju zaključaka sa javnih slušanja koje je organizovao Odbor nakon pokretanja revizionog postupka. S obzirom da se stručna javnost još u toku pripreme Vladinog predloga kritički osvrnula na rešenja o reformi pravosuđa, bilo bi očekivano da Radna grupa uzme u obzir i ova mišljenja.

Ovde se može otvoriti pitanje da li su javna slušanja, organizovana nakon pokretanja postupka, dovoljna da bi se zadovoljili ciljevi javne rasprave o ustavnoj reviziji. Mada ne treba umanjiti značaj održanih javnih slušanja, javna rasprava će ispuniti svoju svrhu samo ako se građanima i stručnoj javnosti omogući da izraze stav o aktu o kome će odlučivati. Otuda javna rasprava treba da bude organizovana nakon formulisanja akta o promeni Ustava od strane skupštinskog Odbora. U istoj fazi akt o promeni Ustava treba poslati na stručnu ocenu Venecijanskoj komisiji. Iako se moglo čuti da je Venecijanska komisija bila upoznata sa sadržinom tokom pripreme Vladinog predloga za promenu Ustava (odnosno, da je notirala predlog), činjenica je da akt o promeni Ustava o kome će građani odlučivati nije bio predmet razmatranja ovog savetodavnog tela Saveta Evrope. Naime, Vladin predlog i akt o promeni Ustava ne moraju se nužno poklapati. Narodna skupština odlučuje o promeni onih ustavnih odredaba koje je predlagač inicirao, ali kako je Skupština nosilac ustavotvorne vlasti, ona može samostalno formulisati akt o promeni Ustava.

Nakon završetka svih navedenih radnji, Narodna skupština će u plenumu raspravljati i doneti odluku o aktu o promeni Ustava dvotrećinskom većinom svih  narodnih poslanika. Međutim, postupak za ustavnu reviziju ovde se ne završava jer se radi o odredbama o uređenju vlasti koje moraju biti iznete na ustavni referendum.

Ustavni referendum je uređen na jedan relaksiran način, a razlog za to može se naći u revizionom postupku prethodnog Ustava (1990) koji je na referendumu mogla promeniti samo većina od polovine svih građana upisanih u birački spisak. Ovako rigidan uslov doveo je do toga da referendum za donošenje Ustava 2006. godine traje dva dana da bi se obezbedila potrebna referendumska većina. To je već na samom početku otvorilo pukotine u legitimacijskom temelju najvišeg opšteg pravnog akta prve samostalne Republike. Nije uobičajeno da referendum traje više od jednog dana, naročito u zemlji sa relativno malim brojem birača i sa teritorijom koja ne iziskuje posebne tehničke uslove za glasanje u etapama.

Da bi se predupredile teškoće koje je rigidna procedura prethodnog Ustava izazvala, u novom Ustavu (2006) je ne samo smanjena referendumska većina već je izostao i tzv. referendumski kvorum. Odluku o ustavnoj promeni donosi većina građana koja glasa za akt o promeni bez obzira koliko je onih koji su izašli na ustavni referendum. Dakle, u nacionalnom pravu Srbije ustavni referendum će biti pravno validan i ako na njega ne izađe većina upisanih birača, što otvara pitanje legitimiteta najvišeg opšteg pravnog akta u slučaju slabog odaziva građana. U formalnom smislu za pozitivnu referendumsku odluku dovoljno je da bude ostvaren veći broj glasova koji podržavaju akt o promeni Ustava u odnosu na one koji su glasali protiv. Odluka će biti doneta bez obzira kolika je ta većina u odnosu na ukupan broj građana sa pravom glasa (na primer, ne traži se jedna polovina ili jedna četvrtina od upisanih birača).

S obzirom na ovakvo ustavno pravilo građani bi trebalo da budu aktivni u referendumskom procesu, jer za one koji se ne slažu sa ustavnim promenama nije dovoljno da apstiniraju i ne odazovu se referendumskom pozivu. Kada za uspešnost referenduma ne postoji obavezan prag izlaznosti, građani treba da iskažu svoj stav eksplicitnim odgovorom ukoliko se protive ustavnoj reviziji.

Ostaje, međutim, da se vidi kakav će biti odaziv građana i kako će to uticati na legitimacijski osnov akta o promeni Ustava. Kratka ustavna istorija Srbije od uvođenja višestranačja devedesetih godina ispunjena je ustavnim aktima koji su bili osporavani zbog nedostatka legitimiteta. Takav je bio slučaj sa Ustavom Srbije od 1990. godine koji je usvojila socijalistička Skupština pre nego što su održani prvi višestranački izbori, zatim Ustav Savezne Republike Jugoslavije od 1992. godine koji je donela Savezna skupština socijalističke federacije okrnjenog sastava jer su iz nje prethodno bile povučene delegacije samoproklamovanih republika, do važećeg Ustava 2006. godine koji je usvojen bez javne rasprave i na referendumu koji je trajao dva dana.

Dr Irena Pejić,

Redovni profesor Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu

In this parliamentary convocation, the sitting of the Committee on Constitutional and Legislative Issues with a proposal for authentic interpretation of the provisions of the Law on Consumer Protection, the Law on the Protection of Financial Service Consumers and the Law on Contracts and Torts was scheduled for July, and cancelled at the initiative of Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić. Although the proposal that the interpretation of the laws is necessary was signed by three MPs of the Serbian Progressive Party, only when the President reacted did the Minister of Justice respond and say that the problem of disputes between banks and clients would be resolved by amending the Law on Civil Procedure. Earlier, in February, the Assembly adopted an authentic interpretation of the Law on Prevention of Corruption, as it was necessary to clarify to the public who is a public official and who is not. Why such frequent attempts at authentic interpretation of the laws, how does it differ from amendments to the laws and does it mean that the laws adopted by the Assembly are bad? The lawyer and former Commissioner for Information of Public importance, Rodoljub Šabić spoke for the Open Parliament. 

What is an authentic interpretation and how common is this instrument in comparative law?

An authentic interpretation is a constitutional legal instrument, a mechanism by which the Parliament, i.e. the authority that passed the law, clarifies the meaning of a certain norm of the law. As a rule, this happens in situations when a new law appears which, for example, radically changes a relationship, or in practice we have a previously unknown institute, or a relationship. It causes certain dilemmas in the subjects to which this law refers or who should apply it, regarding its true meaning, possible consequences and the like. Consequently, those who apply it, most often courts, for example, in case of conflict of views of several courts of the same rank, could turn to the Parliament and ask for a definite explanation of the true meaning of that norm. It is a rarely used instrument. It means per se that the law is not exactly perfect since there is a need for a subsequent interpretation. If subjects, otherwise qualified to apply it, such as courts or administrative bodies, have dilemmas – it means that the law has not been articulated in an ideal way. As a rule, an authentic interpretation should appear soon after the law enters into force, as dilemmas and possible ambiguities arise at that time. Naturally, an authentic interpretation can also be subject to serious abuse. As it happens, we have faced one such case recently in Serbia, where an authentic interpretation of three laws was required, resulting from allegedly spontaneous reactions of three MPs of the same party. An interpretation of the norms was sought, all of which referred to one specific relationship, namely the relationship between the lender and the borrower in the banking sphere, where a dispute arose regarding the collection of secondary, ancillary services provided by the bank.  Since citizens began to protest because of bank fees that were actually much higher than the value of the service provided, the courts began to rule in favour of citizens. Obviously, it was not suitable for banks and, in all appearances, the demand for an authentic interpretation can be explained by an unprincipled lobby or in some other way. So, MPs allegedly came up with the idea on their own to provide a binding order for the courts in the form of an authentic interpretation.

For what reason did they resort exactly to an authentic interpretation in relation to the Law that was in force in previous years when there were the most verdicts in favour of citizens in disputes against banks?

When a law needs to be changed, it implies a certain procedure that does not differ significantly from the procedure of authentic interpretation, but which, by the logic of things, has a different weft. Why would you change now the Law on Contracts and Torts, that has already been affirmed as a fundamental Law that has existed for forty or fifty years? Why would you change the provision of that Law if the practice has not shown any weakness so far? You have a provision the interpretation of which we are seeking. It goes something like this: paragraph 1 – The loan agreement must be made in written form, paragraph 2 – The loan agreement regulates the conditions for granting, using and repaying the loan. What’s there to interpret?  What judge does not understand what that means? And why did it suddenly become unclear to someone after 45 years. In fact, they wanted the Assembly to say in the form of an authentic interpretation: Yes, but if the Agreement does not say that, precisely this and that, binding instructions will be imposed on the court. Courts will be told how to rule, which is inadmissible. The court is independent in the system of division of power, no one can tell the court how it will judge. So this was simply not the norm that required an interpretation. It is a norm that is legally, logically and grammatically completely clear, there’s nothing to interpret. An attitude was sought in order to enable court decisions that will be different from those made by the court now.  

What is the relationship between the law and the authentic interpretation, in relation to the legal force and the enactment procedure?

The procedures are more or less similar according to the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly. However, as a rule, you are passing a law for the future, and the Constitution allows that only certain provisions of the law can have retroactive effect. An authentic interpretation is by definition retroactive. So the moment you say this norm does not mean what you meant, but something else – it supposes that since the beginning of the entry into force of the law “it has meant something else.” Do you understand what a source of legal uncertainty this is? In this situation, if it had been realised, if the President Vučić had not prevented it at the last minute, we would have had a situation where banks would not only not lose disputes anymore, but would be in a situation to demand fees from citizens who won disputes earlier. Again, although Vučić has now prevented this, it is quite certain that he initially stood behind the proposal of an authentic interpretation because it is simply unbelievable that his party’s MPs would try such an operation without the consent of the party leadership. The banks were so sure of the outcome, that they publicly spoke even before the interpretation was made, promising that they would keep their hands off of citizens. The Serbian Chamber of Commerce also reacted as if it had guarantees of what the authentic interpretation would look like. Manifestly, the President estimated at the last minute that it would pay off more politically to withdraw the proposal and to say “that everything is done in the best interest of citizens”.

How often is an authentic interpretation passed in Serbia and for what purposes?

We have been recently seeing this tendency in our country. Everywhere in the world it is a very rare institute that is used only when necessary, as it is a confirmation that some law is not good. We had an almost scandalous situation, the actor was also one of these three MPs who asked for the previously mentioned authentic interpretation. It was an authentic interpretation of the Law on Prevention of Corruption. At first, there was an interpretation that literally whittled away the Law, exempting officials, those who were obviously officials. It was so unbelievable that the public was confused, the media asked questions, and then the next day the MP (chairwoman of the Committee on Constitutional and Legislative Issues), who had asked for an authentic interpretation, appeared and silently corrected the interpretation. This is how the number of those officials who were exempted – decreased. In the afternoon of the same day, yet another correction appeared, and we had such a conundrum that even the proponents of the authentic interpretation did not understand who had been excluded… and serious damage has been done. By the way, the authentic interpretation must adhere to a strictly formal procedure, similar to the law-making procedure. Therefore, when a committee formulates the proposal for authentic interpretation, the Assembly makes a declaration. No president can change the meaning of what the committee has determined on its own initiative. What’s more, there was only one sitting of the committee. So the whole procedure was not followed. Even then, they disgraced that institute. Fortunately, this time, it did not happen again.

U ovom skupštinskom sazivu desilo se da sednica Odbora za ustavna pitanja i zakonodavstvo sa predlogom za autentično tumačenje odredaba Zakona o zaštiti potrošača, o zaštiti korisnika finansijskih usluga i o obligacionim odnosima, bude zakazana za jul, pa na inicijativu predsednika Srbije Aleksandra Vučića, otkazana. Iako je predlog da je tumačenje zakona potrebno, potpisalo troje poslanika Srpske napredne stranke, tek kad je reagovao predsednik, oglasila se ministarka pravde i rekla da će problem sporova banaka i klijenata biti rešen izmenama Zakona o parničnom postupku. Prethodno je, u februaru, Skupština usvojila autentično tumačenje Zakona  o sprečavanju korupcije, kada je trebalo javnosti razjasniti ko je javni funkcioner, a ko nije. Zašto tako česti pokušaji autentičnog tumačenja zakona, kako se to razlikuje od izmena i dopuna zakona i da li to znači da su zakoni koje skupština usvaja loši, za Otvoreni parlament govorio je pravnik i nekadašnji poverenik za informacije od javnog značaja Rodoljub Šabić.

Šta je to autentično tumačenje i koliko je čest instrument u uporednom pravu?

Autentično tumačenje je ustavno pravni instrument, jedan mehanizam kojim parlament, dakle onaj koji je doneo zakon, pojašnjava značenje određene norme zakona. Po pravilu to se dešava u situacijama kada se pojavi neki nov zakon koji recimo radikalno menja neki odnos ili imamo do tad neki nepoznati institut ili odnos u praksi, pa onda to kod subjekata na koji se taj zakon odnosi ili koji treba da ga primenjuju izaziva određene dileme u pogledu pravog značenja, mogućih konsekvenci i slično. Onda bi po logici stvari oni koji ga primenjuju, recimo sudovi najčešće, u slučaju sukoba stavova više sudova istog ranga, mogli da se obrate parlamentu i da zatraže definitivno  pojašnjenje šta je pravo značenje te norme. To je institut koji se retko primenjuje. On sam po sebi znači da zakon nije baš perfektan čim postoji potreba za naknadnim tumačenjem. Ukoliko subjekti, inače kvalifikovani da ga primenjuju, poput sudova ili organa uprave imaju dileme - znači da nije artikulisan na idealan način. Autentično tumačenje trebalo bi po pravilu da dolazi brzo nakon stupanja na snagu, tada se javljaju dileme i moguće nejasnoće. Naravno, autentično tumačenje može da bude podložno i ozbiljnim zloupotrebama. Dakle, mi smo se definitivno suočili sa jednim takvim slučajem nedavno u Srbiji, gde je zahtevano autentično tumačenje tri zakona, kao navodno spontane reakcije tri poslanika iste stranke. A tražilo se tumačenje normi koje se sve odnose na jedan specifičan odnos, na odnos zajmodavca i zajmoprimca u bankarskoj sferi, gde se javio spor u vezi sa naplatom sekundarnih, pratećih usluga koje banka pruža. Pošto su građani počeli da se bune zbog naknade koja je bila realno mnogo veća od vrednosti usluge koja se pruža, sudovi su počeli da presuđuju u korist građana. I očigledno je da bankama to nije odgovaralo pa se, po svemu sudeći, traženje autentičnog tumačenja može objašnjavati neprincipijelnim lobijem ili na neki drugi način. Dakle poslanici su navodno sami došli na ideju da u formi autentičnog tumačenja obezbede obavezujući nalog za sudove.

Iz kog razloga su posegnuli baš za autentičnim tumačenjem u odnosu na zakon koji je bio aktuelan prethodnih godina kada je bilo najviše presuda u korist građana u sporovima protiv banaka?

Zakon treba promeniti, to podrazumeva određenu proceduru koja se ne razlikuje bitno od procedure autentičnog tumačenja ali koja po logici stvari ima drugačiju potku. Zašto biste vi sada menjali Zakon o obligacionim odnosima, koji je već afirmisan kao fundamentalan zakon koji postoji već četrdesetak, pedesetak godina? Zašto biste menjali odredbu tog zakona ako do sada praksa nije pokazala slabost? Imate odredbu čije tumačenje tražimo, odredbu Zakona o obligacionim odnosima koja glasi otprilike ovako stav jedan: Ugovor o kreditu je pismen, stav dva: Ugovorom o kreditu uređuju se uslovi davanja, korišćenja i vraćanja kredita, šta ima tu da se tumači? Kom sudiji nije jasno šta to znači? I otkud odjednom da je posle 45 godina nekom postalo nejasno. Zapravo se želelo da u formi autentičnog tumačenja skupština kaže: Da, ali ako u Ugovoru ne piše to, to i to, da se nametne obavezujuće uputstvo sudu, da se sudu kaže kako će suditi, a to je nedopustivo. Sud je samostalan u sistemu podele vlasti, niko sudu ne može da govori kako će suditi. Dakle ovo jednostavno nije bila norma za tumačenje. To je norma koja je i pravno i logički i gramatički potpuno jasna, nema tu šta da se tumači. Hteo se stav kojim bi se obezbedile odluke suda drugačije od onih kakve sud donosi. 

U kakvom su odnosu zakon i autentično tumačenje, u odnosu na pravnu snagu i proceduru za donošenje?

Procedure su manje više slične po skupštinskom Poslovniku. S tim što zakon donosite po pravilu za ubuduće, a Ustav dozvoljava da samo pojedine odredbe zakona mogu da imaju retroaktivno dejstvo. Autentično tumačenje vam je po definiciji retroaktivno. Dakle onog trenutka kada kažete ova norma ne označava ono što ste mislili, nego nešto drugo - to znači da ona od početka stupanja na snagu zakona “znači to nešto drugo”. Razumete kakav je to izvor pravne nesigurnosti? U ovoj situaciji da se to realizovalo, da predsednik Vučić to ipak nije u poslednji čas sprečio,  imali bismo situaciju da banke ne samo da ne bi više gubile sporove, nego bi bile u situaciji da zahtevaju naknadu i od građana koji su dobili sporove ranije. Opet, iako je Vučić sada ovo sprečio, potpuno je sigurno da je inicijalno stajao iza predloga autentičnog tumačenja jer je prosto neverovatno da poslanici njegove stranke pokušaju takvu operaciju bez saglasnosti vrha stranke. Banke su toliko bile sigurne u ishod, da su se oglasile i pre donošenja tumačenja obećanjem da oni neće dirati građane. I Privredna komora Srbije je reagovala kao da ima garancije kako će izgledati autentično tumačenje. Očigledno je predsednik u zadnji čas procenio da mu se politički više isplati da se predlog povuče i da kaže “da se sve radi u interesu građana “. 

Koliko se često u Srbiji donosi autentično tumačenje i u koje svrhe?

U poslednje vreme se vidi ta tendencija kod nas. Svuda u svetu to je vrlo redak institut koji se koristi samo kad je neophodno, pošto je to potvrda da neki zakon nije dobar. Mi smo imali gotovo skandaloznu situaciju, akter je bila takođe jedna od ovo troje poslanika koji su tražili prethodno pomenuto autentično tumačenje. U pitanju je bilo Autentično tumačenje Zakona o sprečavanju korupcije. Prvo se pojavila jedna verzija koja je potpuno “kasapila” zakon, koja je oslobađala funkcionere, ljude koji su to na najočigledniji način. To je bilo toliko neverovatno da je i javnost bila zbunena, mediji su postavljali pitanja, a onda se sutra dan pojavila ta poslanica (predsednica Odbora za ustavna pitanja i zakonodavstvo), koja je tražila autentično tumačenje i u tišini dala ispravku tumačnje. Tako se broj tih funkcionera koji su izuzeti - ipak smanjio. Pa se istog dana popodne pojavila još jedna ispravka. I sad smo dobili jednu takvu zbrku da čak ni predlagačima autentičnog tumačenja nije jasno ko je tu izuzet, a napravljena je ozbiljna šteta. I usput, autentično tumačenje zadovoljava strogo formalnu proceduru, sličnu proceduri donošenja zakona. Dakle, kad odbor utvrdi predlog autentičnog tumačenja o tome se izjašnjava skupština. Ne može nikakav predsednik da samoinicijativno menja smisao onog što je odbor utvrdio, a bila je jedna jedina sednica odbora. Dakle cela procedura nije poštovana. Već tada su jako zblamirali taj institut, sva je sreća da to ovaj put nije ponavljano.

Although there are not any regulations that oblige MPs to attend the sessions of the National Assembly and to actively participate in debates, the responsibility arising from their function as directly elected representatives of citizens certainly requires it. The situation is different when it comes to voting or the beginning of the sitting, when it is necessary to have a quorum of 126 MPs as a precondition for work.

The National Assembly meets annually in two regular sessions. The first regular session is held in the period from the beginning of March to the end of May, and the second regular session starts in October and lasts until December. The sessions between that period are extraordinary. MPs elect the government and judges, oversee the work of ministers and security services, discuss and decide on laws, and are supposed to consider petitions and proposals coming from citizens.

Nevertheless, this analysis is not so simple, because in the meantime, 24 MPs resigned and were replaced by others (four before the beginning of recording attendance at the sittings). Besides, the attendance of an MP is recorded as their presence in the building, which may mean that they did not participate in the discussion that day, but in the meeting of the friendship group, for example. Moreover, MPs perform other tasks due to which in some cases they cannot attend the sitting in its entirety.

It is undeniable, though, that in the period from October to December 2020, when 24 regular sittings were held, out of 264 MPs one third attended all sittings, and one third had a maximum of five absences.

During the period from March to May 2021, 38 regular sittings of the National Assembly were held. One quarter of MPs were never absent, while slightly more than one third (35%) had between one and five absences.

Attendance of MPs by parliamentary groups

The parliamentary group of the Social Democratic Party of Serbia (SDPS) was most present at the sittings of the National Assembly in the period between October and December 2020. Out of 24 working days, SDPS MPs were present for an average of 22 days and on average on a daily basis they sat in benches for about seven and a half hours. The United Serbia (JS) MPs, who have only one MP more than SDPS, spent on average three days, or 30 hours less (on average) in the parliamentary benches. The largest parliamentary group in the National Assembly “Aleksandar Vučić – For Our Children” attended the sittings for 20 days out of 24, while an MP of this parliamentary group would stay in the bench for less than 7 hours a day on average.

The parliamentary group United Valley – Party of Democratic Action of Sandžak spent the least time at the sittings at the end of 2020. Its MPs sat in the benches for 14 days out of 24 and stayed for an average of 3 hours a day. In addition, the independent MP Vladan Glišić was present at the sittings for 13 days, but he spent an average of 3.5 hours every day in the bench of the National Assembly. The SPS parliamentary group came to the sessions of the National Assembly the least times in this period. They were present only during 11 of the 24 days of the sittings.

As at the end of 2020, the SDPS parliamentary group most attended the sessions of the National Assembly in the period from March to May 2021, when 38 sitting were held. They sat in the parliamentary benches for 250 hours for 35 days, i.e., they spent 7 hours on a daily basis at the sittings. The largest parliamentary group “Aleksandar Vučić – For Our Children” attended the sittings for three days less with a total of about six and a half hours a day.

The independent MP Vladan Glišić “stopped by” 27 times, but spent little time at the sittings, less than one hour a day. MPs of the United Valley – Party of Democratic Action of Sandžak did not do much better. They spent a little more than an hour a day in the parliamentary benches during the 10 days when they attended the sittings.

Although, on average, MPs from the SDPS parliamentary group were the most present at the sittings, the top thirty MPs with the most hours of attendance, with the exception of one, belong to the parliamentary group “Aleksandar Vučić - For Our Children”.

You can access the table with the total number of hours of attendance during the entire 12th convocation for all 264 MPs here.

Data on the MPs’ attendance at the sittings during the 12th convocation were obtained through the Request for Access to Information from the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia. You can access the original data submitted by the Assembly here.

At the last session before the summer break, the amendments to two laws in the field of culture and one international agreement were on the agenda of the Assembly. Judging by the reactions of the chairpersons, all the discussions were on the agenda. In reality only some of them were.

“Make reality shows, throw various parties, make street festivals starting from the “Beer” festival; eventually we will end up with orgies in the squares, just like it happened in Athens, so we will have to figure out whether to kill Socrates, expel Plato, etc.”

“The amendments before us will harmonise the Law on Culture with the Law on Gender Equality and this will enable equal representation of the underrepresented sex in the National Council for Culture, management boards and oversight committees.”

“These and similar legal solutions provide an enduring framework that will facilitate the implementation of equal opportunities policies that we strive for.”

“From the position of women in art, society and probably only temporarily in politics, I want to emphasise that a provision that imposes the presence of 40% of underrepresented gender in the management structures of cultural institutions, whether male or female, is important.“

And then, as if on command, “Serbs did not commit genocide.”

“In the end, our famous director Predrag Antonijević spoke well about it. When asked about the crime in Srebrenica, he asked a counter-question:  Who told you that? When they told him that the mothers of Srebrenica had said that, he said – this is one of the proofs that no crime took place in Srebrenica, because if a crime had happened, there would be no mothers of Srebrenica, just as there were no mothers of Jasenovac after the genocide of Serbs living in the NDH.”

“We did not commit genocide. Croats committed genocide from 1941 to 1945 in the Independent State of Croatia. Croats committed genocide during the operation “Storm”. Please, I emphasise again, let us not confuse a crime with genocide.”

“So, right there where Kurti and Marinika Tepić accuse Serbs and Serbian people of some kind of genocide, there are no more Serbs. The only people that experienced a systematic crime in the 20th century and that lived and experienced genocide is the Serbian people, in the Ustasha NDH.”

“All those who belong to the German, i.e. to the Austrian nation, they should refrain when mentioning the Serbian people in the context of any genocide, because the genocide took place in the First World War. The genocide was committed by the Austro-Hungarians against the Serbs, it was committed by Germany, it was committed by Bulgaria.”

Incidentally, the proposals of the Resolution on the genocide in Srebrenica and the Resolution on crimes in and around Srebrenica are in the parliamentary procedure, but the MPs have not put them yet on the agenda.

For the Open Parliament Mirjana Nikolić.

Iako ne postoji propis koji obavezuje narodne poslanike na prisustvo sednicama Narodne skupštine i na aktivno učešće u raspravama, odgovornost koja proizilazi iz njihove funkcije kao direktno izabranih predstavnika građana to svakako zahteva. Situacija je drugačija kada je reč o glasanju ili početku sednice, kada je potrebno da postoji kvorum od 126 narodnih poslanika kao preduslov za rad. 

Narodna skupština se godišnje sastaje u dva redovna zasedanja. Prvo redovno zasedanje održava se u periodu od početka marta do kraja maja, a drugo redovno zasedanje počinje u oktobru i traje do decembra. Zasedanja između tog perioda su vanredna. Poslanici biraju Vladu i sudije, kontrolišu rad ministara  i službi bezbednosti, diskutuju i odlučuju o zakonima, a trebalo bi da razmatraju predstavke i predloge građana. 

Ova analiza ipak nije tako jednostavna, jer je u međuvremenu 24 poslanika podnelo ostavku i zamenjeno drugima (četiri pre početka beleženja prisustva sednicama). Uz to, prisustvo poslanika beleži se kao prisustvo u zgradi, što može da znači i da on tog dana nije učestvovao u raspravi, već je, na primer, učestvovao na sastanaku grupe prijateljstva. Dodatno, narodni poslanici obavljaju i druge poslove zbog kojih u pojedinim slučajevima ne mogu prisustvovati sednicama u punom obimu.

Nesporno je ipak da je od 264 poslanika, u periodu od oktobra do decembra 2020. godine kada je održano 24 redovne sednice, trećina prisustvovala svim sednicama, a trećina je imala najviše pet izostanaka. 

Tokom perioda mart-maj 2021. godine održano je 38 redovnih sednica Narodne skupštine. Četvrtina poslanika nije izostala ni jednom, dok je nešto više od trećine (35%) imalo između jednog i pet izostanaka. 

Prisustvo poslanika po poslaničkim grupama

Poslanička grupa Socijaldemokratske partije Srbije (SDPS) najviše je bila prisutna na sednicama Narodne skupštine u periodu između oktobra i decembra 2020. godine. Od 24 radna dana, poslanici SDPS-a su u proseku bili prisutni 22 dana i u proseku na dnevnom nivou bi u klupama sedeli oko sedam i po sati. Poslanici Jedinstvene Srbije (JS) koji imaju samo jednog poslanika više od SDPS-a su proveli u proseku tri dana manje u skupštinskim klupama, odnosno 30 sati manje (u proseku). Najveća poslanička grupa u Narodnoj skupštini “Aleksandar Vučić – Za našu decu” je sednicama prisustvala tokom 20 dana od 24, pri čemu bi se poslanik ove poslaničke grupe u proseku zadržavao u klupi nešto manje od 7 sati dnevno.

Poslanička grupa Ujedinjena dolina - SDA Sandžaka vremenski je najmanje bila prisutna na sednicama krajem 2020. godine. Njeni poslanici su 14 dana od 24 bili u klupama i ostajali u proseku 3 sata dnevno. Uz to, samostalni poslanik Vladan Glišić je 13 dana bio prisutan na sednicama, ali je u proseku provodio svakog dana po 3,5 sati u klupi Narodne skupštine. Poslanička grupa SPS najmanje je puta dolazila na sednice Narodne skupštine u ovom periodu. Oni su prisustvovali samo tokom 11 od 24 dana održavanja sednica.

Kao i krajem 2020. godine, poslanička grupa SDPS najviše je prisustvovala sednicama Narodne skupštine i u periodu od marta do maja 2021. godine kada je održano 38 sednica. Oni su u poslaničkim klupama sedeli 250 sati tokom 35 dana, odnosno na dnevnom nivou su 7 sati bili na sednicama. Najveća poslanička grupa „Aleksandar Vučić -  Za našu decu“ je tri dana manje prisustvovala sednicama i ukupno oko šest i po sati na dnevnom nivou.

Samostalni poslanik Vladan Glišić je 27 puta „navratio“ u Skupštinu, ali je na sednicama provodio vrlo malo vremena, tačnije manje od sat vremena dnevno kada bi dolazio. Mnogo bolji nisu bili ni poslanici grupe Ujedinjena dolina - SDA Sandžaka koji su provodili nešto više od sat vremena dnevno u poslaničkim klupama tokom 10 dana kada su prisustvovali sednicama.

Iako su u proseku narodni poslanici iz poslaničke grupe SDPS bili najprisutniji na sednicama, prvih trideset poslanika sa najviše sati prisustva, sa izuzetkom jednog, pripadaju poslaničkoj grupi „Aleksandar Vučić-  Za našu decu“.

Tabeli sa ukupnim brojem sati prisustva tokom celog 12. saziva za 264 poslanika možete pristupiti ovde.

Podaci o prisustvu poslanika sednicama tokom 12. saziva su dobijeni na Zahtev za pristup informacijama od Narodne skupštine Republike Srbije. Originalnim podacima koje je Skupština dostavila možete pristupiti ovde.