A coordinated campaign led by Slovakia’s pro-Russian and nationalist fringe has triggered a potential constitutional clash after submitting over 400,000 signatures demanding a national referendum to end the country’s enforcement of European Union sanctions against the Russian Federation—a move that legal experts say directly contradicts Slovakia’s treaty obligations. The petition, formally advanced by two marginal far-right parties and backed by figures including former Supreme Court judge Štefan Harabin, convicted disinformation publisher Tibor Eliot Rostas, and neo-Nazi livestreamer Daniel Bombicis now under review by President Peter Pellegrini, who must decide whether to declare the referendum or refer the question to the Constitutional Court. The campaign has also received public support from high-ranking politicians such as Speaker of Parliament Andrej Danko and far-right MEP Milan Uhrík, raising questions about the extent to which the governing coalition is willing to accommodate extremist demands.
According to constitutional scholars, the referendum question—framed to suggest economic harm to Slovak citizens—falls outside national competence, as EU sanctions are adopted collectively by the Union and cannot be overridden by domestic plebiscite. Yet political allies of the petitioners have warned Pellegrini against seeking judicial review, echoing language previously used to attack former President Zuzana Čaputová. With polling data showing that Pellegrini owes a significant share of his electoral base to supporters of anti-establishment parties, analysts suggest that his decision could determine not only the future of the petition but also his standing within Slovakia’s governing coalition and among nationalist voters who helped install him in office.
A coalition of nationalist and pro-Russian forces in Slovakia has gathered over 400,000 signatures demanding a referendum on the cancellation of sanctions against the Russian Federation. The petition, led by marginal parties Slovenské hnutie obrody (Slovak Revival Movement) and Domov – národná strana (Homeland – National Party), has now reached President Peter Pellegrini, who is constitutionally tasked with declaring a referendum if at least 350,000 signatures are validated.
The initiative is backed by a network of radical actors. Among them is Štefan Harabin, a former Supreme Court judge known for his conspiratorial rhetoric and for defending Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Tibor Eliot Rostas, editor of the ultra-nationalist conspiracy magazine Zem&Vek, has spent over a decade promoting pro-Kremlin disinformation and narratives targeting NATO and liberal democracy. Daniel Bombic, a livestreamer popular in extremist circles and widely identified as a neo-Nazi, has hosted online appearances by Prime Minister Robert Fico, Defence Minister Robert Kaliňák, Interior Minister Matúš Šutaj Eštok, and Smer MP Tibor Gašpar. His lawyer, David Lindtner, also serves as an adviser to Fico. The campaign is further supported by Zoroslav Kollár, a businessman with a controversial past and known ties to Slovakia’s oligarchic networks. Parliamentary support includes Speaker of Parliament Andrej Danko, head of the Slovak National Party (SNS), and Milan Uhrík, leader of the far-right Republika party and a Member of the European Parliament.
The proposed referendum question reads: “Do you agree that the Slovak Republic should not apply sanctions against the Russian Federation that harm Slovak citizens, tradespeople, and entrepreneurs?” The petitioners aim to frame EU-imposed sanctions as detrimental to Slovak society, in an effort to generate popular opposition to Slovakia’s foreign policy alignment with Brussels.
Legal experts flag severe constitutional risks
Constitutional scholars interviewed by Aktuality.sk agree that the referendum question is likely incompatible with Slovakia’s obligations under EU law. Former Constitutional Court judge Peter Kresák stated that since Slovakia is bound by European treaties, unilateral abandonment of sanctions would contradict both EU regulations and the Lisbon Treaty. Legal expert Vincent Bujňák of Comenius University concurred, explaining that the sanctions regime was adopted at EU level, outside the jurisdiction of the Slovak parliament. Therefore, domestic legal instruments cannot revoke or suspend it. Both advise the president to submit the matter to the Constitutional Court for review.
While President Pellegrini may declare the referendum if the petition is valid, he is constitutionally permitted to request a court ruling if doubts arise over the legality of the proposed question. His office stated that all actions will follow the law but offered no further details.
Organisers escalate rhetoric and pressure
Leaders of the referendum initiative have pre-emptively accused Pellegrini of possible obstruction. Milan Uhrík of Republika warned against “obstruction like Čaputová did,” referring to former president Zuzana Čaputová’s use of the Constitutional Court to review previous referendum petitions. Pavol Slota of Domov called such a move “sabotage,” claiming that the referendum question had already been pre-consulted with a constitutional lawyer whose identity was not disclosed.
Referendum decision poses political risk to Pellegrini
The referendum confrontation is politically perilous for President Pellegrini. According to sociologist Martin Slosiarik of polling agency Focus, Pellegrini owes part of his electoral victory to voters from anti-system parties such as SNS, Republika, and Smer. Around two-thirds of SNS and Republika voters, and up to 90% of Smer voters, currently express trust in him.
Slosiarik warns that this trust could erode if Pellegrini appears to block the referendum. The president’s decision is not only pivotal for the fate of the anti-sanctions initiative—it may also determine his standing within the governing coalition and among the nationalist electorate who helped install him in office.
