You wouldn't believe how much money was spent on "Code violations".

The Croatian Parliament session concluded its spring sitting, with lawmakers returning to their seats exactly two months later. During this time, officials reviewed temporary data from the ninth and tenth sessions of the 11th assembly, examining who was most active and who violated parliamentary rules the most. Independent MP Josip Jurčević, who entered parliament through the Democratic Party list and later joined the MOST party, spoke the most—527 times. He was followed by Damir Barbir, who entered parliament after his party leader Ivica Puljak resigned last October. Dalibor Paus, former president of IDS, spoke 333 times, while MOST members Marin Miletić and Anka Mrak-Taritaš from the Glas party were among the top five most active speakers. In contrast, some lawmakers were almost invisible as speakers. Among them was Marin Corva, who joined parliament just over a month ago as a replacement for the representative of the Italian minority, Furija Radina. Only once did he speak, while Vladimir Bilek, representing the Czech and Slovak minorities, spoke once. Dario Hrebak, head of HSLS and mayor of Bjelovar, spoke twice, and Tomislav Šuta, mayor of Split, spoke three times. Siniša Hajdaš Dončić, head of SDP and the opposition, spoke only five times. A surprising figure emerged regarding violations of the parliamentary rules. A total of 51 hours and 40 minutes were spent addressing breaches of the Rules of Procedure. Many penalties were issued as a result, prompting a look at the record holders. The most violations came from the most active speaker, Josip Jurčević, with 292 infractions. This was followed by Miro Bulj, mayor of Sinj and a member of MOST, and Hrvoje Zekanović, head of HDS, with 155 penalties. Over 130 warnings and sanctions were recorded against HDZ’s Ante Deur and Nikola Grmoja, head of MOST. The data highlights the frequency with which certain lawmakers engaged in procedural misconduct during the session. While some MPs remained largely silent, others consistently challenged the rules, leading to numerous formal reprimands. These figures underscore the intensity of parliamentary activity and the strict enforcement of procedural norms within the legislative body. Lawmakers who frequently violated the rules faced repeated sanctions, indicating a pattern of non-compliance. The high number of violations suggests either a lack of adherence to parliamentary procedures or a deliberate effort to disrupt the legislative process. Such actions can have implications for the functioning of the legislature, affecting the efficiency and decorum of parliamentary proceedings. As the session resumes, these statistics will likely remain relevant for assessing the conduct of individual members and the overall discipline of the chamber. The detailed records provide a clear picture of how often procedural rules were breached and which lawmakers were most involved in such incidents. This information could influence future discussions on reforming parliamentary conduct and ensuring greater compliance with established protocols.