Parempoolsed had claimed that most current MEPs had used pan-European funds in their election campaigns, which gave them an unfair advantage.

Parempoolsed filed its complaint on May 28 with the Tartu-based Supreme Court, less than a week before advance voting for the European Parliament elections began.

The Supreme Court stated that the basis on which candidates are funded at EU elections is already common public knowledge, adding that if Parempoolsed wanted a speeded-up processing of its complaint by the Political Parties Financing Surveillance Committee (ERJK), it should have addressed the ERJK on that.

A Supreme Court ruling published on Friday stated that an individual constitutional review complaint is not permissible in situations where the plaintiff has other means to protect their rights, yet seeks an expedited outcome.

The Supreme Court noted: "While the Parempoolsed Party believes that the ERJK has been passive in its oversight, the complaint does not indicate that they had approached the committee and requested a quicker or more effective conduct of this ongoing supervision procedure."

"If the party believes that a potential violation of the law may have significantly influenced voting results, it can also request the State Electoral Committee (VVK) annul the voting result," the Supreme Court went on, referring to the ongoing European Parliament elections.

Parempoolsed's defense lawyer Mart Parind said that in his opinion, the issue of using pan-European party funds for campaigning in Estonia has been obscured by discussions which indicate that the current law on political parties is disconcertingly vague, and does not allow the precise determination of what constitutes electoral advertising, or that point at which an election campaign begins.

"The party law has explicitly and unequivocally prohibited donations from legal entities since 2004. This is not dependent upon the year, time of day, which way the wind is blowing, or anything else. Donations from legal entities are simply prohibited," Parind said.

"If a European-level party, which is indeed a legal entity and not a natural person, pays for election advertising on behalf of an Estonian party member, it is straightforwardly a donation from a legal entity, which is prohibited," he went on.

Parind referred to a 2016 Supreme Court case involving Center Party co-founder Edgar Savisaar, and stated that there: "Had been an attempt to hijack the narrative and to divert focus."

The alternative procedural means to protect Parempoolsed's rights which the Supreme Court said the party could have taken in practice were not viable, Parind added.

While the court said Parempoolsed could have petitioned the ERJK for expedited proceedings, in fact the ERJK had already indicated that it would not be addressing the matter raised by Parempoolsed until after the European elections.

Parind noted the Supreme Court had listed "various supervisory bodies, such as the Consumer Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority, local governments, and the Police and Border Guard Board, suggesting that we could have approached them and demanded certain actions," in the context of the Advertising Act.

This route would have been similarly ineffectual, Parind said, since it does not cover the issue of donations or origins of funds used in advertising.

"I believe that the Parempoolsed did not have any other reasonable and effective option but to go directly to the Supreme Court. In this regard, I can respectfully disagree with the Supreme Court," Parind summed up.

As for next steps, "It would be difficult to see the next steps taking us to Europe (referring to EU courts here – ed.); instead, these will remain within the Estonian state."

The Supreme Court's constitutional review chamber found the complaint impermissible since the complainant had, and still has, other ways to mitigate the alleged violations by approaching, for example, the ERJK, the court's press service reported.

The court acknowledged that the laws do not set specific requirements for election advertisements, but added that this does not imply that there is no administrative body to oversee violations arising from unlawful election advertisements.

The Law Enforcement Act stipulates that if the elimination of a public order violation does not fall under the jurisdiction of any other law enforcement body, it then lies within the PPA's competence, the Supreme Court found.

The complainant could also have challenged the alleged inaction or ineffective action of supervisory bodies by filing a complaint with a first-tier administrative court, the Supreme Court found.

The short time frame remaining before the elections did not prevent the complainant from approaching either these supervisory bodies or the administrative court, given the alleged unlawful situation regarding the financing of some candidates' election campaigns had been public knowledge, and therefore was known to the complainant, ahead of the elections starting, the Supreme Court noted.

Parind recognized that the court indirectly acknowledged the problem, while the ruling – given it stated the party funding situation in Estonia was common public knowledge – had relevance to voters exercising their judgment at the current European elections.

Point 29 of the Supreme Court's ruling stated: "The chamber notes that the potential violation of election campaign financing rules, as pointed out by the plaintiff, has been known to the public and therefore to the electorate, ahead of the start of the elections."

On May 28, Parempoolsed appealed to the Supreme Court, requesting that the lack of legal norms to effectively prevent the use of prohibited donations for European Parliament election campaign financing be declared unconstitutional.

According to the party, using money from prohibited sources at election campaigns gives their competitors an unfair advantage at the polls.

Parempoolsed noted that all sitting Estonian MEPs, save for Andrus Ansip (Reform), have used their pan-European party funds in their election campaigns, thereby gaining an unfair advantage.

Parempoolsed is led by former prosecutor general Lavly Perling and was founded in 2022, meaning it is contesting its second ever election this week.