8 minutes
[Russian Law] The Constitutional Court ruled that the law is unconstitutional
17 December 2025
On 17 December, the Constitutional Court ruled that the amendment to the law defining the legal regulation of NGOs, effective from June 2025, is unconstitutional. Robert Dobrovodský, Slovak Ombudsman, who challenged the law at the Constitutional Court considers it "to be fundamental for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, confirming that Slovakia remains a country where citizens have clear guarantees against state power".
Law against non-governmental organizations ("Russian law," No. 109/2025 Coll.) - amendment to Law No. 213/1997 Coll. on Non-profit Organizations Providing Services of General Interest was approved on 16 April 16 2025 (supported by 76 MPs out of 79 MPs - Ján Ferenčák did not vote, Peter Kalivoda and Igor Šimko were not present, all Hlas-SD; Slovak Parliament - the National Council of the Slovak Republic - has 150 seats in total). After being signed by President Pellegrini on 7 May, the amendment came into force on 1 June 2025.
#CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULES ON UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
The Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, in case no. PL. ÚS 11/2025, ruled that Act No. 109/2025 Z. z. was in conflict with several constitutional rights under the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
As stated in its press release, "The Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, in a closed plenary session on 17 December 2025, in the case under file no. PL. ÚS 11/2025, ruled that Act No. 109/2025 Coll. was in conflict with several constitutional rights under the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This law imposed on non-governmental organizations (hereinafter referred to as "NGOs"), if their income exceeded a specified threshold, the obligation to prepare a report containing information on persons who contributed to the activities of NGOs, as well as the amount of their contribution. At the same time, it imposed an obligation to file the report in the public section of the register of financial statements. The Act also amended the Freedom of Information Act so that NGOs are also considered obligated entities if they have received public funds.
The Constitutional Court found that the disclosure of information about contributors and the amount of their contributions disproportionately interferes with their right to privacy. This is not necessary to achieve the stated objectives (transparency and combating crime). These objectives can also be achieved by less restrictive means, as was the case under the previous legislation. In addition, the contested legislation is internally inconsistent with regard to the declared objective and the uncertain identifiability of contributors, and is therefore inappropriate. Finally, it has the potential to interfere with the name and personal honor of natural persons and the good reputation of legal persons.
Although the imposition of the obligation to keep and publish records is not in itself an unreasonable administrative burden, the contested legislation has a deterrent effect on contributors and their willingness to contribute to the functioning of civil associations and organizations with an international element. This may jeopardize their functioning.
As regards the classification of NGOs as obligated entities under the Freedom of Information Act, the law, without sufficient reason, transfers obligations typical of public entities to NGOs, which do not have such a character. The result is an unreasonable administrative burden, which can also lead to harassment by other entities and, consequently, to serious interference with the very essence of the activities for which the NGOs were established. In view of this, the Constitutional Court also declared Art. 39 of the Act on Foundations to be unconstitutional.
The objectives of the law declared by the National Council can be achieved through a number of existing instruments in various areas of law. In particular, reference can be made to Act No. 526/2010 Coll. on the provision of subsidies within the competence of the Ministry of the Interior of the Slovak Republic, as amended, or Act No. 299/2020 Coll. on the provision of subsidies within the competence of the Ministry of Culture of the Slovak Republic, as amended."
The full text of the press release is available at this link (in Slovak).
#OMBUDSMAN'S RESPONSE
As Robert Dobrovodský, Public Defender of Rights, stated in this regard, "I consider today's decision of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic to be fundamental for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, confirming that Slovakia remains a country where citizens have clear guarantees against state power. The Constitutional Court agreed with my arguments and upheld my petition regarding the law on non-governmental organizations. This step has stopped attempts at disproportionate state intervention that undermined the principle of freedom, prevented civil society from participating in public life, and introduced unacceptable "spying" on donors and volunteers."
#OMBUDSMAN CHALLENGED THE LAW AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN AUGUST
Immediately after the president signed Amendment No. 109/2025 Coll., Public Defender of Rights, Mr. Dobrovodský declared his intention to challenge the adopted amendment.
On 15 August, he informed that "today I officially announced the submission of a motion to the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, requesting a review of the compliance of Amendment No. 109/2025 Coll. on non-governmental organizations with the Constitution of the Slovak Republic. The motion also challenges the amendment's compliance with international conventions, specifically the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The challenged provisions impermissibly and disproportionately restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural and legal persons."
Among other things, he also stated that "some parts of the law on non-governmental organizations undermine the principle of freedom, prevent civil society from participating in public life, and introduce disproportionate state interference that allows for 'spying.'"
#CIVIL SOCIETY REACTIONS TO THE SLOVAK CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULING
The Platform for Democracy "welcomed the Constitutional Court's ruling in the "Russian law" case! The platform, which brings together more than 80 non-governmental non-profit organizations and led the "No to the Russian Law" civic campaign, welcomed today's decision by the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, which ruled that the controversial law against non-governmental organizations was unconstitutional".
The Civil Society Foundation reacted similarly, describing the Constitutional Court's decision as the news of the year. "We warned representatives of the governing coalition that they were about to pass a law that would harm civil society organizations and violate the Slovak Constitution and our domestic and European legislation. However, they decided to bypass the legislative process and did not allow for proper participatory discussion of the proposed legislation. We warned of the threat of the greatest restriction of civil rights and freedoms since 1989. That is why we bluntly called it the 'Russian law'.
In support of our position, we organized a large protest march together with the organization Mier Ukrajine (Peace to Ukraine|, which was attended by nearly 10,000 people in front of the National Council of the Slovak Republic on 3 April. Thank you."
Photo credit: SME (Jozef Jakubčo) - Civil protest (NO to Russian law, Slovakia is Europe)
As Katarína Batková from Via Iuris, which analyzed the amendment in detail before its approval (more in MEMO 98 article from 15 August), stated in this regard, "If it is not amended in accordance with the decision within six months, it will lose its effect." She pointed out that the coalition had been warned about the bill's inconsistency with the constitution and with domestic and European legislation. "However, they decided to bypass the legislative process, did not allow for proper participatory discussion of the proposed legislation, and made changes chaotically at the last minute," she added.