Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic enjoys the confidence of the Croatian parliament and has a stable majority. This was confirmed on Friday by the vote on a motion of no confidence initiated by the Social Democratic Party (SDP) following the arrest of former Health Minister Vili Beros.

The motion received 64 votes in favour of Plenkovic’s dismissal and 76 votes against. To be successful, the opposition needed 76 votes in favour.

Earlier this week, parliament held a day-long debate on the no-confidence motion.

During the debate, opposition MPs accused the government of harbouring “mafia-like elements” in state structures and cited numerous corruption scandals, including the recent arrest of Health Minister Beros. The ruling coalition rejected the opposition’s accusations as unfounded and labelled the SDP’s motion “another defamatory and unstructured attempt by a defeated opposition”

Grbin: If we know that there has been theft, we must act

Since October 2016, when Plenkovic took office as prime minister, this is the third case in which parliament has questioned his leadership. The first time was in 2017, also on the initiative of the SDP, in connection with the Agrokor scandal. The second time was in February 2023 under the leadership of the Domovinski pokret (DP) party due to the JANAF scandal, the embezzlement of funds from the oil company INA, the failure to implement healthcare reforms and the delays in post-earthquake reconstruction.

Before the vote, the opposition members repeated their reasons for Plenkovic’s resignation.

Bozo Petrov (Most party) argued that there are moments in life when you have to resign out of responsibility for your subordinates, even if you are not directly guilty.

“That did not happen here, and there was not even an apology,” said Petrov. He also criticised the SDP for simultaneously pushing for the vote of no confidence and negotiating Constitutional Court appointments, calling the situation a “political farce and trade-off.”

Pedja Grbin (SDP) responded that it was her duty as a responsible party to make the motion. “If we know that there has been theft and that this is just the tip of the iceberg, we must act,” he said.

Pavlicek: If a team performs poorly, the coach is held accountable

Independent MP Marija Selak-Raspudic called for an end to this “charade and duopoly” in the upcoming presidential election.

Marijan Pavlicek (Croatian Sovereignists) used an analogy from sport and said that if a team performs poorly, the coach is held accountable. “In this case, the coach is Andrej Plenkovic”

Sandra Bencic (Mozemo party) accused Plenkovic of deliberately ignoring corruption: “For years, he has chosen to know nothing and has based his government on the power of ignorance, which leads to a reign of irresponsibility.”

“He has led the country for eight years without admitting to a single scandal, corruption case or illegal act involving his closest associates. This man should have resigned a long time ago,” said Bencic.

Puljak to the coalition partners: How much does your silence cost?

Marijana Puljak (Centre party) criticised the coalition partners of the HDZ and asked: “How much does your silence cost?”, while Dalija Oreskovic (DOSIP party) repeated the demand for Plenkovic’s resignation.

The ruling majority also rejected a motion by the Mozemo party, which had been submitted together with the SDP’s no-confidence proposal. The motion aimed to oblige the government to amend the law on the rights and duties of civil servants within 30 days, in particular Article 15, which concerns the 6+6 severance rule. This rule was controversial after former minister Vili Beros had requested this benefit.

The Mozemo party’s proposal aimed to deny this benefit to officials who have been convicted of criminal offences, who have been dismissed as a result of criminal investigations and who are under trial pending a final judgement. They also proposed that officials who received this benefit during ongoing proceedings that led to a conviction must repay the money to the state budget. Only 28 opposition MPs supported the motion.

“It is a disgrace that this was not supported. Shame on all those who did not vote in favour,” said MP Bencic.