Dangerous Proposals to Amend the Constitution of Slovakia: Undermining Fundamental Rights and International Law

Slovakia is approaching a pivotal constitutional moment after a narrowly avoided vote on controversial amendments proposed by Prime Minister Robert Fico’s government was postponed until September. These proposed changes threaten to significantly undermine fundamental rights and erode the primacy of EU and international law. While framed as cultural or moral clarifications—such as recognizing only a binary definition of sex—they form part of a broader strategy to weaken institutional checks and bypass international obligations by redefining “national identity”. Coupled with a vague and opaque legislative process, the amendments raise serious concerns about the future of the rule of law in Slovakia, explains Peter Čuroš.

The fourth Fico government has intensified its assault on democratic principles, revealing deep vulnerabilities in Slovakia’s legal system. Altogether, the government has been employing several strategies to consolidate power and weaken civil society: undermining judicial independence; expediting the legislative process; exerting political control over independent institutions; and finally, limiting the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens.

Due to the lack of the parliamentary majority necessary to directly amend the scope of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, the ruling coalition has been restricting these rights through changes at the sub-constitutional level.

Due to the lack of the parliamentary majority necessary to directly amend the scope of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, the ruling coalition has been restricting these rights through changes at the sub-constitutional level. Step by step, the parliamentary majority has interfered with the right to freedom of assembly by adopting severe limitations on public assemblies after the assassination attempt on the Slovak Prime Minister in May 2024. It has also limited the right to freedom of information by placing access behind a paywall and creating new classifications of “limited information” and “critical infrastructure” to avoid public oversight. Furthermore, it has limited the right to participate in the administration of public affairs by adopting changes to the law on the protection of nature and landscape. Most recently, it has restricted the right to associate by adopting several amendments to laws on non-governmental organizations, requiring them to publish the identities of donors and disclose information upon public request.

Going one step further, in late January 2025, the Prime Minister’s Office introduced a draft law to amend the Constitution which, in addition to establishing the recognition of two sexes, creates an exception to the primacy of EU law and international law in matters of fundamental rights and freedoms, which will be discussed in this article. Other proposed changes include introducing the principle of same pay for men and women, restricting adoption to married couples (effectively banning it for same-sex or non-married couples), making legal gender changes significantly more difficult or impossible, tight parental control over school curricula, and requiring all educational content to conform with "constitutional values."  

Legal Context: Short Introduction to the Slovak Constitutional Framework

The Slovak Constitution is polytextual, consisting of the main constitutional charter and several separate documents known as constitutional acts to supplement it. The main body of the Constitution may be amended directly or through a constitutional act. Altogether, 23 direct amendments of the Constitution and more than 20 constitutional acts have been adopted, all carrying equal validity and legal force as the primary document.

The Slovak Constitution only requires a three-fifths majority in the National Council (Parliament) to be amended. Since the fall of the socialist regime in 1989, the Federal Czechoslovak Constitutional Court and later the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic have operated under the premise that the National Council cannot amend the “material core” of the Constitution, and that the Constitutional Court cannot review compliance between constitutional statutes and the Constitution itself. However, in 2014, the National Council passed a constitutional amendment introducing a vetting procedure for new judges and control mechanisms for sitting judges, breaking away from this practice. 

[I]t is unlikely that the Constitutional Court will be able to prevent any detrimental change to the Constitution brought by the recently introduced amendment bill.

Following this move, the Constitutional Court issued a decision popularly known as the "material core of the Constitution" ruling, in which it asserted that there are certain fundamental principles—such as the rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of fundamental rights—that form the unalterable essence of the Constitution and cannot be eliminated or undermined, even by constitutional amendments. In response to this ruling, the Parliament adopted an amendment  to the Constitution explicitly stating that the Constitutional Court does not have the competence to review the compliance of constitutional acts with each other or with the Constitution. In this context, it is unlikely that the Constitutional Court will be able to prevent any detrimental change to the Constitution brought by the recently introduced amendment bill.

Political Context

While the ruling coalition, led by Fico’s Social Democrats party (SMER-SD) introduced its own constitutional amendment proposal in January 2025, a separate draft was submitted shortly afterward by several opposition members—meaning there are two distinct proposals, not one joint effort. Despite this, some opposition figures, particularly from the Christian Democratic Movement (KDH), have unexpectedly supported key parts of the ruling party’s proposal, raising questions about informal collaboration or ideological convergence.

If KDH representatives claim that voting for Fico’s proposal constitutes a strategy to “dismantle” his party and attract conservative voters, they either dangerously underestimate Fico or have decided on a serious alliance with new political partners.

This agreement between the ruling coalition and the KDH also stems from an ambition to please the  electoral support from religious communities ahead of the 2027 parliamentary elections. This cooperation is not just tactical—it reflects Fico’s attempt to build a broader conservative-nationalist front by co-opting traditionalist elements of the opposition. If KDH representatives claim that voting for Fico’s proposal constitutes a strategy to “dismantle” his party and attract conservative voters, they either dangerously underestimate Fico or have decided on a serious alliance with new political partners. In other words, KDH’s actions suggest either political naiveté or a quiet ideological convergence with Fico’s increasingly illiberal agenda. This is unfortunate, as half the country believed KDH would be one of the pillars of a pro-European democratic government following Fico's defeat.

(...) [T]he current political dynamics suggest a readiness to repeat similar bargains, prioritizing short-term gains over long-term institutional integrity.

KDH had already supported Fico’s constitutional amendment proposals in 2014. In return for the inclusion of their preferred provision defining marriage as an exclusive commitment between a man and a woman, KDH supported the controversial part of the amendment regarding judicial qualifications. These included the termination of office for judges appointed before 1 July 2014 if they did not meet so-called “preconditions for judicial abilities”. At the time, this exchange was widely criticized as a politically motivated trade-off that could compromise judicial independence. In 2019, the Constitutional Court ruled this amendment unconstitutional. Despite that ruling, the current political dynamics suggest a readiness to repeat similar bargains, prioritizing short-term gains over long-term institutional integrity.

Content of the Proposal

It is Not About Genders, But About Binding International Law

While Articles 7(2) and 7(5) of the Constitution establish that Slovakia respects legally binding EU acts and ratified international treaties (...) the proposed paragraphs 6 and 7 would reverse this, granting Slovak law priority in matters of “national identity”.

The most contested part of the bill is the addition of Article 52a, stating: "The Slovak Republic recognizes only the sex of man and woman". However, while controversial, this provision is essentially a smokescreen. It is simple and says nothing of substance—drawing attention away from the more significant changes buried in Article 7. While Articles 7(2) and 7(5) of the Constitution establish that Slovakia respects legally binding EU acts and ratified international treaties, which take precedence over Slovak laws, the proposed paragraphs 6 and 7 would reverse this, granting Slovak law priority in matters of “national identity”.

Until now, the primacy of EU law and international treaties—which provide stronger protection for fundamental rights and freedoms than national law—meant that international and European courts could still safeguard these rights, despite changes introduced in national law. However, the proposal to undermine the position of international treaties and EU law means this protection could collapse.

The Worst Law is an Unclear One

National identity is not a new concept invented by the ruling coalition. It is already reflected in Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union, stipulating that European Union law does not take precedence over national law in matters of national identity, which remain within the competence of Member States.

The problem lies in how the ruling coalition, with the support of KDH, seeks to define national identity. The proposed definition includes fundamental cultural and ethical issues such as protection of life and human dignity, private and family life, marriage, parenthood and family, public morality, personal status, culture and language, as well as decision-making in areas such as health, science, education, personal status and inheritance.

It is unclear (...) why human dignity—a core concept in international human rights law—is to be considered a matter of national sovereignty.

It is unclear on what basis the ruling coalition decided on this list, and why human dignity—a core concept in international human rights law—is to be considered a matter of national sovereignty. On this basis, there have been concerns that Slovakia might begin offering lower protection of fundamental rights compared to the rest of the democratic world.

The question arises: Is the reasoning behind so many ambiguities stemming from malicious intent?

What is more, another very problematic provision of the bill states: "The Slovak Republic retains sovereignty primarily in matters of national identity, consisting mainly of basic cultural and ethical issues". Here, the ruling coalition breaches the principle of legal clarity. The use of the words "primarily" and "mainly" leaves the scope of national identity intentionally vague and expandable. Such vagueness opens the door to manipulative or fraudulent interpretation and application. The question arises: Is the reasoning behind so many ambiguities stemming from malicious intent?

"Admit You Never Signed It"

Another issue with the proposal is its retroactive application. Proposed Article 7(7) states: "Nothing in this Constitution and constitutional laws shall be construed as the consent of the Slovak Republic to the transfer of the exercise of part of its rights in matters constituting national identity".

To reject the legal consequences of voluntarily undertaken obligations is not only illegal, but also ultimately immoral.

In practice, this means that international treaties Slovakia has already signed may not be considered binding if they relate to issues of national identity. This move is reminiscent of The Great Gatsby, where, nearing the grand finale of the film in the Plaza Hotel in New York, Jay Gatsby demands Daisy say: "Tell Tom you never loved him". Gatsby’s belief that a single sentence can erase the past mirrors the coalition’s attempt to force the Constitution to deny Slovakia’s international obligations. However, Slovak law is based on the principle of predictability and therefore excludes retroactive effects. To reject the legal consequences of voluntarily undertaken obligations is not only illegal, but also ultimately immoral.

A Flawed Process: To Be Continued

The legislative process surrounding this amendment proposal has been messy and opaque. The version of the bill submitted to Parliament was significantly different from the original draft circulated for interdepartmental consultation. The objections received from the public during the consultation process were not taken into account and instead, the Prime Minister’s Office replaced contested provisions with an even more problematic version of the bill. Just hours before the vote, several new amendments were introduced, including previously undiscussed changes to the electoral system, provisions on conscientious objection, and a ban on surrogate parenthood. For instance, a member of Parliament from the parliamentary majority proposed to abolish the current electoral system based on a single nationwide electoral district.

Worryingly, the Constitutional Court’s recent decision regarding the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code (which upheld controversial fast-tracked amendments despite procedural irregularities) has given the government more leeway to circumvent standard legislative procedures.

Fortunately for Slovakia, one member of the ruling coalition and one member of KDH withdrew their support for the bill in its current wording.

On 16 June, the Parliament held a brief constitutional committee meeting, followed by a short debate. Fortunately for Slovakia, one member of the ruling coalition and one member of KDH withdrew their support for the bill in its current wording. As a result, the ruling coalition lacked the majority needed to pass the amendment by a single vote and was forced to postpone the vote to the parliamentary session in September.

If the amendment passes in its current form, it could mark a turning point in Slovakia’s constitutional order (...).

With the vote on the constitutional amendment postponed, Slovakia stands at a critical turning point. The coming months will be pivotal, not only for the ruling coalition’s ability to secure the necessary votes but also for civil society, opposition parties, and international observers to mobilize and raise awareness. If the amendment passes in its current form, it could mark a turning point in Slovakia’s constitutional order, weakening the influence of international and European legal safeguards on fundamental rights. However, the delay offers a narrow window of opportunity to scrutinize the proposal, challenge its legality, and engage the public in a broader debate about the future of democracy and the rule of law in Slovakia.

Peter Čuroš is a lawyer at the Slovak expert legal organization VIA IURIS, where he focuses on the rule of law and civil society organizations. He has published academic work on judicial reforms, democratic backsliding, legal education, judicial ethics and critical legal theory.

♦ ♦ ♦ 

Suggested citation: Peter Čuroš, ‘Dangerous Proposals to Amend the Constitution of Slovakia: Undermining Fundamental Rights and International Law’, ConstitutionNet, International IDEA, 3 July 2025, https://constitutionnet.org/news/voices/dangerous-proposals-amend-constitution-slovakia-undermining-fundamental-rights

Click here for updates on constitutional developments in Slovakia.