On May 30, the presidentially beholden court ruled that “the frequency of elections has to be reasonable” to ensure “continuity and stability in the formation of representative bodies.” Thus, it effectively deprived Kyivans of the right to choose their mayor and elect a legitimate city council until the last weekend of October 2015.

Members of the political opposition are angrily shrugging their shoulders. They can block the city council, but this will only impede how the city is run. They can appeal the constitutional court’s decision in the European Venice Commission, but even if it rules that the decision lacked legal grounds, the ruling will have no binding force in Ukraine and will simply be ignored.

It seems like the opposition has lost this battle. It also seems like they didn’t plan on winning it anyway. 

For months the opposition’s three leaders were unable to come up with a single mayoral candidate coupled with their confusing and contradictory public statements. It seemed like none of them wanted to run for mayor because they eyed the bigger prize of running for president in 2015. 

Perhaps knowing there were high chances that the elections in Kyiv would take place before 2015 was the reason for losing this battle. 

But it does not mean that they have to lose the war. 

There clearly is a legal loophole in the election legislation that has enabled the capital to be left without an elected head. It needs to be plugged. Coincidentally, approving an election code – something Ukraine still doesn’t have – is one of the European Union’s top requirements for signing an Association Agreement in November.

The opposition should analyze the legal needs for local election legislation, and proceed with drafting a new law to incorporate it into the election code. It should be done while rhetoric momentum for European integration is still harbored by the party of power, and while the ruling majority formally still believes there is a chance for the landmark agreement.