Constitutional Court judges have decided that Miksic's appeal is unfounded, because as an independent candidate he was not entitled to having his own monitors.
The Court upheld the ruling of the DIP which rejected Miksic's request in compliance with the law on the election of the Croatian President, which envisages that the work of polling committees and election commissions can be observed by representatives of political parties which have their candidates running in elections, by representatives of nongovernmental organisations and by foreign observers, while independent candidates can exercise this right through cooperation with nongovernmental organisations. DIP gave Miksic instructions about this, but he failed to follow them formally and he had never submitted a written request for being allowed to have his monitors.
Miksic complained that DIP breached his constitutional right to equality, claiming that DIP misinterpreted the law.
The Constitutional Court confirmed that Miksic did not qualify for monitoring the work of DIP and he asked for permission to do so on the very day of election on 2 January, while the law stipulates that NGOs, with which Miksic could have monitored the DIP's activities, have to submit a request for monitoring elections not later than 20 days after a decision on calling elections is made public.
Constitutional Court judges also concluded that in insisting on a repetition of the vote count, Miksic did not give any evidence of election irregularities which could have affected elections results. Therefore his request for the repetition of the vote count was unfounded.