The Slovak government under Prime Minister Robert Fico is advancing legislation that would reclassify critical civil society organisations as lobbying entities—subjecting them to invasive disclosure, surveillance, and the threat of dissolution. The proposal, widely referred to as the “Russian law” for its resemblance to Kremlin tactics, applies solely to NGOs while excluding churches, business lobbies, and trade unions. Legal experts warn it violates constitutional principles, opens the door to selective punishment, and risks dismantling essential services provided by civic groups. Dr. Katarína Batková, a Slovak lawyer and executive director of the legal watchdog VIA IURIS, describes the law as a strategic effort to stigmatise dissent and roll back public participation. Fedor Blaščák, a public intellectual and managing director of the Slovak Open Society Foundation, calls it a deliberate attempt to reverse the legacy of the 1989 democratic transition and warns that Slovakia now faces a regime change, not just a shift in governance.
The Slovak government under Prime Minister Robert Fico has introduced a legislative proposal that would subject a narrow category of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to enhanced reporting obligations, surveillance, and sanctions. The law, widely labelled by critics as the “Russian law”, would redefine NGOs engaged in any form of public advocacy as lobbyists—while excluding commercial, religious, and political interests from the same definition.
Dr. Katarína Batková is a Slovak lawyer and civil society leader. She is the executive director of VIA IURIS, an independent civic association focused on justice, the rule of law, and environmental protection. She explained that the name reflects a clear lineage: “This law mimics Russian efforts to restrict and stigmatise critical organisations by labelling them as foreign or subversive agents. The mechanisms are different, but the purpose is the same: to suppress civic participation and silence dissent.”
Fedor Blaščák is a Slovak philosopher, public intellectual, and civil society advocate. He serves as the managing director of the Slovak Open Society Foundation and leads the Platform for Democracy, a prominent coalition of civil society organisations in Slovakia. Blaščák was more direct. “This is a counter-revolution against November 1989. We are not witnessing a debate over governance—we are witnessing an attempt to redefine the regime itself.”
Legal Vagueness and Structural Discrimination
Central to the criticism is the law’s deliberate vagueness. It defines lobbying as “any direct or indirect influence on public officials or policymakers”. As Batková warned, “This could mean a public statement, a Facebook post, a petition, or even participation in a formal consultation. The law provides no guidance. It is dangerously broad.”
She noted that such a definition is inconsistent with democratic standards. “In most of the European Union, where lobbying is regulated at all, the focus is on the lobbied official, not the civil actor. It is the public servant who must disclose who they meet and why—not the citizen.”
Fedor Blaščák echoed the concern, adding that the law introduces “strategic ambiguity” to enable selective enforcement. “The definition is not meant to clarify; it is meant to confuse—and punish later.”
In practice, only NGOs would be affected. The law explicitly excludes business lobbies, employer associations, trade unions, and sports clubs. Churches and religious groups are not mentioned and would likely fall outside its scope. “It’s not just unequal treatment,” Batková said. “It’s targeted discrimination. It singles out organisations that engage in rights-based advocacy or policy criticism.”
Unfair Burdens, Sanctions, and the Threat of Dissolution
Under the proposed law, qualifying NGOs must submit a detailed lobbying report every three months. They must disclose all donors if their income exceeds €35,000 per year and publish the names of board members—raising immediate concerns about personal data protection and freedom of association.
Failure to comply would trigger administrative fines of up to €10,000. If an NGO violates the law three times in a year—regardless of intent—it could face forced dissolution.
Crucially, enforcement would not be uniform. While some types of NGOs—such as foundations and non-profits—could only be dissolved by a court, others, especially citizen associations and international NGOs, could be shut down directly by the Ministry of the Interior. “This violates basic principles of due process,” Batková said. “It places the burden on NGOs to prove their innocence instead of requiring the state to justify coercive action through judicial oversight.”
She warned that the law could be used for “administrative harassment”—not unlike strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) already condemned by the European Parliament.
Blaščák agreed: “This is not about transparency. It’s about intimidation.”
Retroactivity and Legal Uncertainty
Batková also criticised the law’s retroactive clauses, which would allow citizens to demand information about how NGOs handled public funds in previous years—even if no such obligation existed at the time. “This is a textbook violation of the rule of law,” she said. “Laws must be clear, prospective, and predictable. Otherwise, you create legal insecurity.”
The broader danger, she explained, is that the law is both unclear and punitive. “Even if an organisation wants to comply, it cannot know how. And because sanctions are high and processes are vague, the risk of punishment is constant. That is incompatible with the principles of democratic legality.”
Manufactured Enemies: The Soros and Foreign Funding Myths
Both speakers denounced the recurring claims by Prime Minister Fico and his allies that Slovak NGOs are directed and funded by foreign powers, especially George Soros or the United States government.
“This narrative is false and deliberately inflammatory,” said Blaščák. “The Open Society Foundations ceased operating in Slovakia over a decade ago. George Soros has had no direct financial involvement since 2011. USAID hasn’t operated here since we joined the European Union and NATO. These are facts.”
Batková noted that the bulk of NGO funding today comes from European sources or domestic grants. Ironically, as Blaščák pointed out, the largest American financial contributions in recent years—totalling over €200 million—went not to NGOs but to Slovak state institutions, notably the Ministry of Defence.
“The Soros story is fiction,” Blaščák said, “but its use is not harmless. It is rooted in antisemitic stereotypes that echo the rhetoric of Slovakia’s fascist era. This is no longer just political manipulation—it borders on hate speech.”
Undermining Civil Society’s Role in Public Life
The proposed law would also designate NGOs as “mandatory information providers” (povinné osoby), making them subject to freedom-of-information requests. While this may sound reasonable in theory, Batková explained that the burden would be massive in practice.
“Citizens would be entitled to request any information, not just about public funding. Even if an NGO has no state support, it would still be required to formally respond. This drains time, staff, and legal resources.”
She offered a practical example: “If someone demands to know how many cars Via Iuris owns, and we have none, we cannot simply reply. We must file a formal exemption, which must be processed by a public agency. This burdens not only us but also the state.”
The law assumes citizens make requests in good faith—but both speakers warned that it opens the door to targeted harassment. “It weaponises the right to information against private citizens acting in the public interest,” Blaščák said.
Eroding Trust, Participation, and Public Services
Both speakers warned that the law’s effects would extend far beyond paperwork. It threatens to deter civic participation at a structural level.
“When you require NGOs to disclose personal data about their board members, you create a chilling effect,” Batková said. “People won’t want to serve. They won’t want to donate. They won’t want to be involved.”
Blaščák agreed: “Imagine being 23 and passionate about a social cause. Then you learn that you or your family could face exposure, scrutiny, or punishment simply for engaging. That’s enough to make people walk away.”
The consequences are not just theoretical. Many public services in Slovakia are delivered by NGOs—especially in areas where the state has minimal presence: care for the elderly, legal aid, support for Roma communities, education initiatives, and shelters for the abused.
“If these organisations collapse under pressure,” Blaščák warned, “the people who suffer will be the most vulnerable. The state cannot replace their work. The real cost will be paid by pensioners, children, and the marginalised.”
A Moment of Reckoning
Blaščák concluded with a sobering message: “This is not a typical legislative dispute. This is a struggle for the future of our political system. We are not talking about a new government—we are talking about a new regime.”
He drew parallels to Viktor Orbán’s Hungary and Vladimir Putin’s Russia, where similar laws were passed under the guise of transparency and national interest. “The goal is always the same: to shrink civic space, intimidate critics, and consolidate power.”
He warned that even those inside the NGO sector underestimate the threat. “Many are exhausted, demoralised, and overwhelmed. But now is not the time to retreat. Now is the time to decide what kind of country we want to live in.”
Both speakers called for legal resistance—at the Slovak Constitutional Court, and, if necessary, at the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. They also called for political mobilisation, recalling the civic movements that resisted authoritarianism in the 1990s.
Blaščák invoked a historic line from dissident Vladimír Krčméry, spoken before a communist court: You may hold the power. But we hold the truth — and that still stands. Yet it means nothing unless we act.”
Source: Braňo Dobšinský | Source: Aktuality.sk
