The Slovak government has proposed a radical constitutional amendment that would allow national laws to override European Union regulations and international human rights treaties, a move legal experts warn could push Slovakia into direct conflict with Brussels and threaten its EU membership. The amendment, which lacks a clear legal enforcement mechanism, could allow state authorities to selectively ignore EU rules, creating legal chaos and damaging Slovakia’s credibility as a reliable European partner. Civil society watchdog VIA IURIS has condemned the proposal as reckless and legally nonsensical, arguing that it violates Slovakia’s treaty obligations and undermines legal certainty for businesses and citizens. If passed, Slovakia could face EU infringement proceedings, financial penalties, and further erosion of trust with its European allies. Critics warn that the government’s attempt to rewrite constitutional law in defiance of EU rules mirrors the authoritarian legal battles seen in Poland and Hungary—raising urgent questions about Slovakia’s long-term place in the European Union.
Proposed Constitutional Changes and Their Implications
The Slovak government has introduced a draft amendment to the Constitution of the Slovak Republic (LP/2025/24), proposing significant changes to the legal hierarchy between Slovak national law, European Union law, and international treaties. The amendments, contained in nine specific points, notably seek to alter the primacy of EU law and international human rights treaties over national legislation.
Among the most controversial provisions are Articles 2 and 3, which would establish that:
• EU legal acts and international treaties would no longer automatically take precedence over Slovak national law if they conflict with the Slovak Constitution.
• This applies to international human rights conventions, treaties requiring no further legislative implementation (such as EU foundational treaties), and agreements directly granting rights to individuals or businesses.
Currently, Slovakia adheres to the principle that EU law and international human rights treaties have primacy over national law in cases of conflict, as outlined in Article 7 of the Constitution. The proposed amendment, however, introduces uncertainty about which legal standard takes precedence in disputes.
A key issue is the lack of a designated body responsible for determining constitutional conflicts. While constitutional disputes in most EU member states are adjudicated by constitutional courts, the amendment does not specify whether the Slovak Constitutional Court would have exclusive jurisdiction. This omission raises concerns that various public authorities—potentially including government agencies or ordinary courts—could unilaterally decide whether EU or international law applies in specific cases.
Furthermore, the amendment could have far-reaching implications for Slovakia’s EU membership. The country voluntarily transferred some sovereign powers to the European Union upon accession in 2004. By creating a legal framework allowing national law to override EU law, Slovakia risks breaching its commitments under the Lisbon Treaty and the principle of loyal cooperation. If enforced, the changes could invite legal disputes, EU infringement proceedings, and potential financial penalties.
Legal Experts and Civil Society Challenge the Amendments
VIA IURIS, a Slovak legal watchdog, has strongly opposed the proposed amendments, arguing that they introduce legal uncertainty, contradict Slovakia’s EU obligations, and undermine legal stability. The organisation submitted a mass comment (hromadná pripomienka) urging the Slovak government to withdraw the contested provisions.
VIA IURIS raises several key objections:
1. Absence of a clear mechanism for resolving legal conflicts: The amendment does not specify which authority determines whether a law violates the Constitution, raising concerns that any state institution could make such determinations arbitrarily.
2. Violation of EU treaties: Slovakia voluntarily agreed to the primacy of EU law upon joining the Union. Allowing Slovak national law to override EU legal acts contradicts the Lisbon Treaty, which requires member states to respect and apply EU law consistently.
3. Legal uncertainty for individuals and businesses: If national authorities refuse to apply certain EU regulations, Slovak citizens and companies could face conflicting legal interpretations, disrupting trade, investments, and access to justice.
4. Weakening Slovakia’s standing in the EU: The move mirrors legal disputes seen in Poland and Hungary, where constitutional conflicts with EU law have led to political tensions, EU sanctions, and funding restrictions.
Beyond the provisions affecting Slovakia’s international obligations, VIA IURIS also objects to amendments contained in Articles 5–9, arguing that they introduce excessive legal detail into the Constitution. The organisation highlights that certain changes—such as the amendment to Article 41—are redundant, as they duplicate existing constitutional provisions. VIA IURIS stresses that the Constitution should remain a broad framework document, while specific legislative details belong in ordinary laws.
The legal watchdog warns that, if adopted, the proposed amendments could lead to a breakdown in Slovakia’s legal alignment with the EU, potentially forcing the country into a situation where compliance with both the Slovak Constitution and EU law becomes impossible. This, in turn, could fuel debates about Slovakia’s long-term position in the European Union.
In response, VIA IURIS and other civil society organisations have launched a public petition opposing the amendments, calling on the Slovak government to abandon the changes and uphold Slovakia’s international legal commitments.
Source: Via Iuris
