In a move condemned as a direct assault on civil society, the government of Robert Fico has passed a sweeping new law that imposes strict reporting obligations on all non-governmental organisations, including those providing critical aid to vulnerable communities. Approved by 76 coalition MPs on 16 April 2025 after a year of chaotic rewrites and no public consultation, the legislation abandons earlier plans to label NGOs as “foreign agents” but retains vague, punitive requirements that critics say enable state surveillance and harassment. Civil society leaders warn the law will suffocate grassroots volunteers under a mountain of bureaucracy, while opposition MPs and legal experts denounce it as unconstitutional and politically motivated. With President-elect Peter Pellegrini expected to sign it, Slovakia risks aligning itself with authoritarian regimes like Russia and Hungary, where similar laws have been used to dismantle independent civic life.
On 16 April 2025, the Slovak parliament adopted a new law regulating non-governmental organisations (NGOs), culminating a 13-month process marked by opacity, confusion, and abrupt legislative reversals. The bill was supported by 76 coalition MPs and passed without public consultation or parliamentary consensus. More than a year after its initial introduction, its final form was rushed through in a process that left even coalition lawmakers uncertain about its exact content.
As noted by Fedor Blaščák, a public intellectual and trustee of the Open Society Foundation in Slovakia, “not even God could make sense of it” — referring to the incoherence of the legislative process, where entire drafts were discarded and replaced only hours before the final vote.
Despite the length of the drafting process, the law was adopted without any meeting or negotiation with the civil society organisations it directly targets. Not even those serving on the Government Council for Persons with Disabilities — a formal advisory body — were consulted. The public debate on the legislation was limited to a single, truncated parliamentary session, in which the ruling coalition limited discussion to 12 hours. Over 40 MPs who had registered to speak were cut off, silencing dissent from both opposition figures and some within the coalition itself.
Though first tabled by the extremely pro-Kremlin Slovak National Party (SNS) in early 2024, the law was in practice shaped and driven by figures close to Prime Minister Robert Fico — namely Erik Kaliňák, Richard Glück, and Juraj Gedra. Their final version, pushed through in the eleventh hour, bore little resemblance to the initial draft. According to Blaščák, this reflects a broader pattern of disregard for legislative process and civic dialogue.
From Foreign Agents to Policy by Confusion
The law originally aimed to categorise foreign-funded NGOs as “foreign agents,” a tactic modelled on legislation in Russia and Hungary. Later proposals sought to reclassify them as “organisations with foreign support,” and eventually as “lobbyists.” All these labels were ultimately withdrawn in the final version. Nonetheless, the law’s administrative demands, described by critics as both punitive and technically vague, remained.
According to Blaščák and numerous NGO representatives, the law now obliges all NGOs to:
- Submit annual “transparency statements” starting in 2026. These reports must include detailed financial disclosures.
- Publicly list the names of all donors contributing more than €5,000, a provision that critics say violates the right to privacy as upheld by both the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union.
- Publish the names and roles of all members of their governing bodies, effectively expanding the range of private individuals under state scrutiny.
- Comply with Slovakia’s Freedom of Information Act (Infozákon) if they receive more than €3,300 in public funds in a single instance or €10,000 cumulatively over time.
The text does not clearly define what constitutes public funds, nor does it provide guidance for how organisations without public funding should handle info requests. NGOs warn that this ambiguity will result in enforcement chaos, as they are left to guess how to comply.
Control mechanisms introduced in the law are equally unclear. Registry authorities are granted the power to demand “additional information” to verify transparency reports, without clearly defining what such information might include. They are also authorised to impose fines on organisations that fail to meet vague requirements. According to Blaščák, these tools can be weaponised to intimidate critical civil society actors.
Law Targets Those Helping Vulnerable Communities
Slovakia’s civil society sector responded with alarm. Nadácia Zastavme korupciu (Stop Corruption Foundation) and Via Iuris, two of the most prominent NGOs affected, criticised both the content of the law and the process by which it was adopted.
Zuzana Petková, director of Nadácia Zastavme korupciu, warned that by removing provisions on lobbying — which had previously required more extensive disclosures — the law paradoxically reduced her organisation’s obligations compared to the status quo. “We will now be obliged to report less than before,” she stated. Yet the law imposes new burdens on smaller organisations that lack legal departments or paid staff. “You will be punishing NGOs that don’t even have employees and are run by volunteers helping the sick and the elderly,” she warned parliamentarians. These organisations, she said, could be harassed by hostile individuals making excessive info requests under the new law.
Via Iuris, which does not receive public funding, highlighted the absurd consequences of the legislation: the law obliges NGOs to respond to info requests about their use of public money — but those without such funding legally cannot respond. According to Via Iuris, citizens — encouraged by political rhetoric portraying NGOs as enemies of the state — may begin demanding information that organisations are not authorised to provide, including salaries, car ownership, or foreign grants. These requests, though legally invalid, would still require bureaucratic handling, diverting resources from charitable work.
As Via Iuris put it, “These kinds of bad ideas, which will burden thousands of civil society organisations and, ultimately, ministries and local authorities, would never have made it into the law if the drafters had not bulldozed them through without expert debate.”
A Law Discussed in the Kremlin
While civil society voiced concerns about enforcement, critics also pointed to the ideological framing and geopolitical implications of the law. Despite government denials, it has been widely referred to as Slovakia’s version of Russia’s 2012 “foreign agents” law. The parallels are not limited to the original terminology. SNS leader Andrej Danko previously acknowledged discussing the legislation during a visit to Moscow. Smer MP Tibor Gašpar publicly declared in parliament that “this is only the beginning,” echoing the step-by-step approach taken by Russian authorities when expanding legal restrictions on civic life.
Fedor Blaščák characterised the legislation as a calculated attack on democratic infrastructure. He described it not merely as legal overreach, but as part of a broader authoritarian drift — one in line with the legislative models adopted in Russia, Georgia, and Hungary, where NGO laws have been used to dismantle independent civil society.
During parliamentary debate, several coalition MPs openly expressed views suggesting the law is meant to suppress political criticism. SNS MP Karol Farkašovský claimed that “it is not democratic for NGOs to campaign against the government,” while SNS MP Dagmar Kramplová confirmed the selective intent behind the law: “We value social organisations; we will not target them.” Blaščák observed that these statements indicate the law is not about transparency, but about politically discriminating between “good” and “bad” NGOs.
Opposition and Legal Rebuttals
Parliamentary opposition parties — including Progressive Slovakia (PS), Freedom and Solidarity (SaS), and the Christian Democratic Movement (KDH) — condemned the legislation and its rushed passage. Opposition MPs Zuzana Števulová, Lucia Plaváková, Tina Gažovičová, Branislav Vančo (all PS), Ondrej Dostál and Mária Kolíková (SaS), as well as Maroš Čaučík and Ján Horecký (KDH), voiced strong support for civil society and criticised what they saw as a coordinated effort to suppress independent watchdogs.
Several opposition figures and legal experts are preparing to challenge the law before the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, arguing that it violates constitutional guarantees of privacy, freedom of association, and equality before the law.
The Slovak Ombudsman, Róbert Dobrovodský, formally warned MPs that the law may violate constitutional and European legal standards. In a letter to parliament, he stated that the law “creates space for the Constitutional Court to declare it unconstitutional.”
The law now awaits final approval by the President of state Peter Pellegrini, who has thus far avoided committing to a clear position. NGOs and opposition leaders have called on him to veto the legislation. However, as noted by Blaščák, Pellegrini has previously expressed suspicion of NGOs, questioning why they would object to publishing donor names unless they “have something to hide.” Blaščák interpreted this statement as evidence that “even as the highest constitutional official, [Pellegrini] does not understand the basics of constitutionalism.”
Slovakia Joins the Club of Rogue Democracies
Pellegrini’s former party, Hlas-SD, publicly rejected earlier versions of the bill but ultimately supported the final draft. While Hlas’s late amendments removed the most extreme features, their backing of the final text suggests a convergence with Fico’s agenda to curtail civil society.
Blaščák concluded that Slovakia’s adoption of the NGO law represents a sharp legal and symbolic turn away from the European democratic mainstream. “They think they’ve won,” he wrote, “but in truth, they have lost — before history, and they will lose again in the courts.”
While the government claims the law aligns with European transparency standards, Slovak civil society organisations, legal experts, and human rights authorities view it as an assault on the foundations of liberal democracy — one that risks placing Slovakia among countries where political power is wielded against independent civic actors rather than in dialogue with them.
Sources:
Fedor Blaščák | SME.sk
Michal Deliman | SME.sk
Filip Obradovič | Denník N
Nina Janešíková | Denník N
