“Esteemed,

Expressing regret due to the attempt to abuse the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Montenegro for the purpose of daily politics, and with regard to the statement of the Head of MP Group of Independent MPs Mr Mladen Bojanić, with the intention of objective informing, it is our duty to inform the public of the facts, of which we have already informed MP Mr Bojanić.

With regard to holding of the Third - Special Sitting of the Second Ordinary (Autumn) Session in 2015 dedicated to the Prime Minister’s Hour and parliamentary questions, two parliamentary questions were submitted to the Registry Office of the Parliament, signed together by the following MPs: Mr Mladen Bojanić, Mr Dritan Abazović, Mr Velizar Kaluđerović, Mr Neven Gošović, Mr Obrad Gojković, and Mr Novica Stanić. One question was addressed to Mr Raško Konjević, Minister of Interior, and the other one to Mr Zoran Pažin, Minister of Justice. The parliamentary questions were submitted to the Registry Office of the Parliament shortly before the end of the prescribed deadline for submitting parliamentary questions.

The Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Montenegro, within the Chapter “X. RELATIONS OF THE PARLIAMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT”, i.e. sub-chapter “Parliamentary Questions and Prime Minister’s Hour”, defines the institute of the parliamentary question, meaning: the posing of the question, the answer to the parliamentary question, as well as the comment on the question and supplementary question. Provisions of Articles 187 through 193 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Montenegro clearly and unequivocally regulate that the institute of parliamentary question belongs to the MP, and that the MP, solely as an individual, may pose a question, receive the answer to that question, give a comment to the answer and pose a supplementary question.

Based on the cited provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Montenegro with regard to the institute of parliamentary question, a parliamentary practice was established in numerous sittings, which represents an incontestable source of law in this concrete case. Otherwise, consideration of parliamentary questions posed jointly by MPs from the MP Group of Independent MPs would require disruption of good parliamentary practice as a value of Montenegrin parliamentarism which was being created over a long period of time. It would result in an absurd situation if one of the signed MPs were to pose the question, while the others would have the opportunity to undertake other procedural actions (to comment on the answer and pose a supplementary question) with regard to the parliamentary question, which could take an inappropriately long time and thus render the institute of parliamentary question meaningless.

Furthermore, due to the short amount of time between the moment of submitting the said parliamentary questions and the expiration of deadline for them being posed, there was no opportunity for procedural intervention, i.e. no opportunity for the Parliamentary Service to officially point out the resulting oversight.

Those were the reasons why the parliamentary questions signed by several MPs of the MP Group of Independent MPs were not included in the agenda of the Third - Special Sitting in part relating to parliamentary questions, so it could be said that unfounded claims were released to the public on this occasion.

Respectfully,

Siniša Stanković”