4.1.2.4. Constitutional Court The Constitutional Court plays a subsidiary role in the administration of electoral justice, as it makes decisions in electoral disputes where no judicial or other relief is available. Any voter, Presidential candidate, member of a legislative body, or nominating entity can seek a ruling from the Constitutional Court in an electoral dispute that is not legally subject to judicial jurisdiction.53 If an infringement of electoral rules is proven, and it has had a material impact on the outcome of the election, the Constitutional Court can deliver a decision to annul an entire electoral process or a clearly indicated part of it. The Law on the Constitutional Court provides for a special type of electoral dispute, which is initiated by an appeal against a decision certifying the election of a Member of Parliament. This appeal can be lodged by a candidate standing for election to Parliament and the relevant nominating entity within 48 hours of the decision having been made. The authority whose decision is being appealed is required to deliver the required documentation to the Constitutional Court within 24 hours. Legal scholars believe the Constitutional Court has indirect jurisdiction over elections by being able to rule on legislation and make decisions to ban political parties.54 When it comes to electoral justice, the Constitutional Court has to date primarily assessed the constitutionality of electoral legislation and legality of enactments adopted by the electoral administration. Here, the Court ruled on whether the Local Elections Law complied with the Constitution in particular respects (electoral rights of members of the public, right of local legislature members to freedom of opinion and expression) and ruled on applications for amendment of a number of enactments issued pursuant to contested legal provisions. In 2014, the Court also assessed whether the REC’s Guidelines were compatible with other regulations after two local authority areas (Vranje and Raška) were illegally declared to be locations where results of voting in Kosovo and Metohija were to be formally certified, instead of the actual polling stations being so designated, as envisaged by law. In this case, the Court held that only the law could stipulate a specific procedure for certifying the results of voting at particular polling stations, and that the Guidelines (which are subordinate to the law) could not be used for that purpose. Ultimately, the Constitutional Court declared that two articles of the Guidelines contravened the LEMP.55 Law on the Constitutional Court, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 109/2007, 99/2011, 18/13 – Constitutional Court Ruling, 40/15, and 103/15. 54 Maja Nastić, Pravo na nepristrasan i nezavistan sud u kontekstu rešavanja izbornih sporova, Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu, godina 50, Niš, 2007, p. 185. 55 Constitutional Court ruling No. I Uo-149/2014 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 22/14), with dissenting opinion of one judge. 53 34