A proposed amendment to Slovakia’s law on non-governmental organizations has triggered strong reactions across the political spectrum and from civil society, raising concerns about transparency, state control, and democratic freedoms. While the ruling coalition defends the draft law as a move toward greater transparency, opposition parties and several NGOs see it as an attempt to intimidate and restrict independent civic activity. Romana Grajcarová had a closer look at this issue.
NGO controversial bill Máte problém s prehrávaním? Nahláste nám chybu v prehrávači.
What the Bill Proposes
The law, first proposed in 2024 and now revised, introduces three main changes:
- Transparency Reports: NGOs with annual income over €35,000 would be required to publish a report listing major donors (over €5,000) and board members.
- Lobbying Regulation: The bill introduces lobbying as a formal concept in Slovak law and imposes new disclosure rules on interactions with public officials.
- Oversight of Public Funds: NGOs receiving state or EU funding would be labeled as “designated entities” and required to report how those funds are used.
According to Adam Lučanský, MP from the ruling Smer-SD party and one of the bill’s authors, the goal is straightforward: “We’re asking for transparency from those who use public money. This isn't about control, it's about accountability.”
Justice Minister Boris Susko echoed that sentiment, saying: “Public officials must disclose their finances. Why shouldn’t the same apply to NGOs funded by taxpayers?”
Critics Raise Red Flags
But many see the law as an attempt to restrict independent civic activity—particularly those who’ve criticized the government in the past.
Opposition MP Marián Čaučík (Christian Democrats) argues the bill is politically motivated: “This isn’t about transparency. It’s about silencing NGOs that the government can’t control.”
The bill originally included language labeling certain NGOs as “foreign-funded,” a clause many likened to Russian-style legislation. Although that phrase was later removed, the stigma remains.
Civil Society Warns of Long-Term Damage
One of the strongest critics of the bill is Zuzana Petková, director of the Stop Corruption Foundation.
“This law isn’t just about reporting requirements,” she said. “It’s fueling public distrust in NGOs, suggesting we’re working against Slovakia. That kind of rhetoric is dangerous.”
Petková also pointed out the law’s vague definition of lobbying, warning that it could be misused:
“Would posting on social media count as lobbying? Writing an open letter? The law leaves too much room for interpretation—and that gives the government a tool to go after organizations it doesn't like.”
She believes the law targets advocacy groups rather than private-sector lobbyists:
“Developers and tobacco companies still fly under the radar, while watchdogs like us would be subjected to stricter rules. That’s not lobbying regulation—it’s harassment.”
Legal Experts Weigh In
Katarína Batková, director of Via Iuris, shares these concerns. Her organization analyzed the bill and found several problematic areas:
- Legal Ambiguity: It’s unclear whether ordinary advocacy actions—like petitions or campaigns—could be treated as lobbying.
- Unequal Regulation: The law targets only NGOs, ignoring corporate and union lobbyists.
- Democratic Erosion: Batková warns that the law sends a message that civil society is a threat, not a partner in democracy.
International Alarm Bells
Concerns have also come from outside Slovakia.
On April 4, Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, sent a formal letter to the Slovak parliament. He warned that the bill could violate human rights standards and urged MPs to reconsider key provisions.
While acknowledging some improvements—like the removal of the “foreign agent” label—he noted that serious concerns remain, especially around lobbying regulations and the risk of excessive oversight.
Political Divides Persist
Lucia Plaváková, MP from Progressive Slovakia and Chair of the Human Rights Committee, strongly opposes the bill.
“We’re prepared to speak with MPs who have doubts. But if the bill passes in its current form, we’ll challenge it in the Constitutional Court.”
Opposition MP Čaučík added that the law could have far-reaching effects:
“Thousands of organizations—those working in social services, human rights, and environmental protection—could face new obstacles in simply doing their jobs.”
What's Next?
Whether passed, amended, or rejected, the law’s fate will shape the future of Slovakia’s civil society—and may redefine the relationship between the state and the organizations that hold it accountable.
