Constitutional Court to the Rescue (Zeitgeist 16.)

The end of 2025 has been dramatic in the Slovak story of democratic backsliding. The European Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against Slovakia over constitutional amendments that threaten the primacy of EU law and could undermine fundamental rights, prompting criticism from legal experts and international bodies. Domestically, the Slovak parliament has abolished the independent Whistleblower Protection Office, replacing it with a government-controlled agency, a move criticized for politicizing the process and undermining anti-corruption efforts. Additionally, controversial amendments to the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Act have introduced vague offenses targeting election interference, freedom of speech, and judicial testimony

The visit by European Chief Prosecutor Laura Kövesi highlighted Slovakia’s role as a hub for VAT and customs fraud, indicating organized crime and endangering EU financial interests. Political instability intensified with Deputy Prime Minister Kmec’s resignation amid scandal and internal coalition conflicts, while nationalist protests, such as the chalk revolution, reflect heightened social polarization. The judiciary is also under scrutiny, with new analysis indicating inconsistent handling of attacks on judges and debates over potential politicization. Constitutional Court decisions recently struck down detrimental changes to laws governing Freedom of Information, NGO transparency, and whistleblower protection, defending civil liberties against government restrictions. Lastly, a restrictive SLAPP lawsuit against a former theatre director exemplifies ongoing challenges to free expression and underscores broader concerns about legal harassment and political control.

Slovakia faces infringement

The European Commission has opened infringement proceedings against Slovakia following the September constitutional amendments, which might allow Slovak authorities to assess whether EU law and CJEU rulings apply, undermining the primacy, autonomy, effectiveness, and uniform application of EU law. The amendment, proposed by the government, passed with the support of MPs from SNS, HLAS, KDH, and Hnutie Slovensko. It included vague terms such as “national identity” and “cultural-ethical issues,” which critics warned could enable selective compliance with EU obligations. Legal experts, former constitutional judges and international bodies — including the Venice Commission, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights warned that these formulations create legal uncertainty and may reduce fundamental rights protection.

The Commission had raised concerns before the changes were adopted, but the Slovak parliament approved them without addressing those warnings. A recent CJEU judgment requires member states to recognise same-sex marriages legally concluded in other EU countries where recognition is necessary for EU rights like free movement, which affects Slovakia’s registry practice. If Slovakia refuses to comply, it risks referrals to the EU Court, financial penalties, loss of EU funds, and prolonged tensions with partners. Some Slovak politicians defended the amendment as protecting national sovereignty on identity issues, dismissed earlier warnings as hoaxes, and undermined the Commission’s infringement case.

Parliament abolished the Whistleblower Protection Office

Before the end of the year, Slovakia’s parliament voted to abolish the independent Whistleblower Protection Office and replace it with a new Office for the Protection of Victims of Crime and Whistleblowers, whose leadership would be selected by the government and elected by the Parliament. Critics say the rushed, fast-track process and last-minute amendments were designed to remove the current leadership and politicize the institution rather than genuinely improve protection. The new law allows repeated reviews and potential cancellation of previously granted protections, enabling employers to challenge whistleblower status. Legal experts, prosecutors, international NGOs, and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office warned that the changes undermine legal certainty, the rule of law, and the EU whistleblower protection directive. President Peter Pellegrini vetoed the bill, citing procedural and substantive flaws, though the coalition later overrode his veto. Opposition parties have challenged the law at the Constitutional Court, and NGOs supported the challenge with an amicus brief, while protests have mobilized public opposition. Whistleblowing networks signalled they will examine the law for compatibility with EU rules and the protection of EU financial interests. Observers warn Slovakia risks delayed or frozen Recovery Plan payments of up to €2.7 billion and other enforcement actions if Brussels finds breaches. The move is portrayed by critics as political payback targeting police investigators and as part of a broader weakening of anti-corruption institutions under the Fico government.

The Constitutional Court has temporarily suspended the law intended to abolish the Whistleblower  Protection  Office, keeping the current leadership in place until a final ruling confirms the law’s constitutionality. The Court expressed serious doubts about whether the bill, hastily passed by the government during a weekend session, complies with the Slovak constitution, which requires laws to have a general scope and not target specific individuals, such as the Office’s leaders. The Court’s decision underscores ongoing concerns about the legality and potential abuse of the legislative process used to overhaul key anti-corruption institutions.

Another amendment of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Act

The ruling coalition pushed through last-minute amendments to the Criminal Code that introduce several new offences and procedural changes, including a vague crime of “obstructing an election campaign” punishable by up to one year in prison. Critics warn the proposal criminalizes ordinary civic mobilization and risks being used to target activists and NGOs that receive foreign funding or cooperate with European networks. Opposition and legal experts argue that campaign infractions are already regulated by administrative fines, so adding criminal penalties is disproportionate and unnecessary. This newly introduced crime is seen as a means of legitimizing unproven claims made by government representatives toward the United Kingdom and as meddling in the 2023 election.  Another new offence, punishing alleged interference in the post-WWII peace settlement, has been seen as politically targeted, particularly against Progressive Slovakia leader Michal Šimečka, who criticized the current application of Edvard Beneš’s 1945 decrees.

A change in procedural law bars courts from relying on the testimony of cooperating defendants who previously lied, a change prosecutors fear will hamper investigations into organised crime and high-level corruption. Observers say the latter amendment primarily benefits SMER vice-speaker of the parliament, Tibor Gašpar, who faces serious criminal charges and whose allies submitted the changes. The amendments were rammed through in a compressed, often chaotic session with debate cut short and heated clashes on the floor. Critics likewise deplore the opaque authorship of the proposals and suspect government advisers with conflicts of interest shaped the text. 

President Peter Pellegrini signed last-minute amendments to the criminal law, despite earlier criticizing the government for bypassing legislative rules in its effort to dismantle whistleblower protections. Just days earlier, he condemned the legislative process for violating the rule of law and risking EU interests, but on the day of signing, he approved key changes introduced by the ruling parties without debate, with legislators openly disregarding legal procedures. Critics, including prosecutors, condemned both the process and substance of the changes, warning that they undermine judicial independence and the rule of law. This sequence of events underscores a troubling pattern of erosion in legal and institutional frameworks.

Laura Codruța Kövesi visiting Slovakia

European Chief Prosecutor Laura Codruța Kövesi warned that Slovakia has become a major transit hub for VAT and customs fraud, fueling organised crime and causing huge losses to EU budgets. EPPO data link more than 4,700 suspicious companies to 172 VAT cases in Slovakia, with eight Slovak-origin investigations alone already exceeding €500 million in damage. Europol estimates EU-wide VAT fraud costs €50 billion annually, diverting funds from schools, healthcare and infrastructure while empowering professional money launderers.

EPPO probes show Slovak-registered shell companies often function as final stops before proceeds are sent to third countries, enabling trafficking in drugs, people and arms. Investigation Calypso exposed networks across 14 countries, including Slovakia, suspected of causing at least €800 million in combined VAT and customs damage. Kovesi said detection and reporting in Slovakia are weak and called for specialised customs, tax and police investigators and more European Delegated Prosecutors to handle EPPO cases. She stressed that the EPPO’s competence requires member states to report relevant crimes and that the office prosecutes them in national courts. The scale of fraud also undermines EU trade policy, competitiveness and legal certainty for honest businesses. Kovesi urged concrete reforms and cooperation to close safe havens for financial criminality and protect the EU’s financial interests.

Deputy Prime Minister Kmec resigned, and HLAS created chaos in the parliament

Deputy Prime Minister Kmec resigned amid a scandal over multimillion-euro research grants, a dispute that has deepened cracks within Slovakia’s coalition. Prime Minister Robert Fico demanded his dismissal, citing doubts over the handling of public funds, while Kmec claimed the allocation process was lawful but stepped down to spare his party and the country further harm. The contested grants for biotechnology, robotics, and automation remain suspended, drawing opposition criticism over opaque allocation and alleged favoritism toward HLAS-linked sponsors. Kmec returned to parliament as a lawmaker and was temporarily replaced by Education Minister Tomáš Drucker, who warned the coalition could face further crisis.

By the end of 2025, the ruling coalition was in trouble, struggling to process government bills, and HLAS could not secure the removal of Ján Ferenčák from the parliamentary committee on European affairs, where HLAS sought to appoint the dismissed Kmec. Interior Minister Matúš Šutaj Eštok has been pushing to oust Ferenčák and install Peter Kmec, but the coalition lacked agreement and postponed the vote after SMER demanded guarantees that HLAS would not lose any more MPs. Despite the controversial dismissal of Ján Ferenčák from the chair of the parliamentary committee on European affairs, Kmec did not replace Ferenčák, but accepted a position of an ambassador in Rome.

Chalk revolution

A spontaneous “chalk revolution” erupted after anti-Fico slogans were drawn outside a Poprad school ahead of a planned appearance by Prime Minister Robert Fico, prompting the event’s cancellation and polarising public reaction. The protest’s most visible figure is a student, who wrote an anti-Fico message on the sidewalk. Government allies escalated tensions by comparing the student to a would-be assassin, a comparison widely criticised as disproportionate. The episode has since sparked nationwide chalk messages and highlights how Slovakia’s simmering culture war rapidly turns local acts of dissent into broader political flashpoints.

Does the Judicial Council apply a double standard?

A recent analysis from VIA IURIS examined how the Judicial Council responds to verbal attacks on judges and found its criteria inconsistent and insufficiently transparent. This analysis was debated for three hours in a council session that offered few substantive rebuttals to the report’s findings. The report concluded that council members apply inconsistent standards when assessing attacks—sometimes focusing on content regardless of the speaker, and at other times weighing the speaker’s public prominence—leaving citizens unclear about where freedom of expression ends and an impermissible attack begins.

The analysis concludes that the Judicial Council does not align its criteria with established standards, such as those of the European Court of Human Rights, which effectively set speech boundaries through its rulings. The rising number of politicians publicly attacking judges has prompted the review. MPs from the ruling coalition and government representatives have repeatedly questioned judges’ impartiality, prompting concern that executive rhetoric undermines judicial independence. The Judicial Council discussed these cases but failed to provide clear, fact-based explanations for its decisions, leaving many attacks unaddressed. VIA IURIS argued that ad-hoc, politicized assaults on judges, sometimes invoking conspiratorial ties, pose a systemic risk to the rule of law and can amount to criminal accusations without evidence. VIA IURIS warned that without clearer standards and firmer council responses, public trust in the judiciary will erode amid growing politicization. The situation calls for the council to adopt predictable, publicly explained criteria and to act decisively to protect judicial independence from partisan attacks.

The Constitutional Court decided on Freedom of Information Act amendments

The Constitutional Court struck down a law proposed by the nationalists‘ MPs that would have charged fees for “exceptionally extensive” public information requests, confirming critics’ warnings that monetising access to state information is unconstitutional. Proposing MPs argued that fees would deter frivolous queries, but their bill failed to define what counts as “exceptionally extensive,” leaving officials with broad discretion.

Public watchdogs warned the measure would restrict the right to information and create no workable appeals mechanism for disputed fees. After opposition MPs challenged the law in the Constitutional Court, the court held that access cannot be conditioned on payment, thereby vindicating the legal and data-driven critique. The ruling demonstrated that sustained expert scrutiny and coordinated civic action can prevent erosions of transparency.

NGO transparency law is unconstitutional

Slovakia’s Constitutional Court struck down the government’s contested NGO law, ruling that mandatory public disclosure of donors and donations violated privacy, freedom of association and expression, and several constitutional principles. 

Civil society organizations and watchdogs criticized the legislation as internally inconsistent, disproportionate, and ill-suited to achieving its stated aims of transparency and crime prevention, warning that it would deter donations and hamper NGOs with international links. Also they argued, that treating NGOs as “obliged persons” under Freedom of Information Act unlawfully shifted public-sector duties onto private organisations and imposed excessive administrative burdens. President Pellegrini had signed the law, arguing it posed no constitutional or EU law problems. Ombudsman Róbert Dobrovodský and civil-society groups warned the law jeopardised donor privacy, risked surveillance and violated data-protection norms. NGOs and watchdogs hailed the ruling as a victory against attempts to intimidate and politicise civil society. The decision cancels the law once published in the Collection of Laws, leaving the coalition to decide whether to redraft a constitutionally compliant version. Public watchdogs see the episode as part of broader government efforts to curb critical NGOs. 

Šimkovičová successful in SLAPPing Drlička

The Bratislava County Court has issued a temporary order prohibiting Matej Drlička, a former director of the Slovak National Theatre, from publicly commenting on Minister of Culture Martina Šimkovičová, including any truthful or evaluative statements. This unprecedented measure bans him from making any remarks about her in all forms of media, including social media and blogs, due to his past comments labeling her as a “neo-nazi” and comparing her to the Gestapo. Šimkovičová filed a lawsuit seeking damages and justified her request by citing Drlička’s statements, which she claims harm her reputation. This was not the first case of SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) from Minister of Culture Šimkovičová. Previous lawsuits aimed against other public figures like Michal Hvorecký and Ilona Németh, whose comments and legal actions were dismissed by police.