The Constitutional Court voted five to three not to open proceedings on the provisions of the Electoral Code that divide up money and media space for paid political advertising. The rules stay as they are. And among the three who voted against is the Court's own president, Darko Kostadinovski, who said publicly that he considers those provisions unconstitutional.

The challenges were filed by Levica and the Democrats (cases U.br.144/2025 and U.br.145/2025). They contested parts of Articles 75-gj, 76-d and 78-a - the ones under which state money for election advertising is distributed according to the results of the previous election. The Court had already discussed the same issue on 8 July, but there was no sufficient majority then and the case was left hanging.

"Res judicata"

The majority of judges invoked res judicata - a matter already decided. In 2023, on an initiative by Pavle Trajanov, the Court had already ruled that votes won are an objective criterion and that Parliament has the right to set its own rules on how parties are presented in the media. "Some of the judges remained consistent with the position they had previously taken," Kostadinovski said after the session.

He himself stayed consistent not with the majority, but with his own dissenting opinion from three years ago. "It is my deep conviction that these legal solutions do not create fair and equal conditions for all participants in the electoral race. Pluralism doesn't end on election day," the Court's president said. Another of his arguments is hard to refute: if a new party is formed between two election cycles, under the current model it practically cannot get any money and starts from a far worse position.

Levica argues that the 2023 "res judicata" doesn't apply, because the situation is different. Back then, no parliamentary party had been excluded from paid advertising. In the 2025 local elections, according to Levica, it was precisely that party, with its own parliamentary group, that was left without access. "So much for the guardian of the Constitution," the party responded. Whether a new set of facts raises a new question, the majority of judges didn't even want to consider.

Rules written by the winners

Here is the core that no ruling changes. The model of "as many votes in the last election, as much money in the next" is written by Parliament - and that model rewards, above all, the biggest parties in Parliament. The Constitutional Court has now told them that's their right. The Justice Ministry, meanwhile, is announcing new talks with the parties on amending the Electoral Code, including clearer rules on paid advertising. The question is whether anyone at that table will sit on the side of those who don't yet have a voice in Parliament.