Unlike in Poland and Hungary, the government in Slovakia has not mounted a serious offence against the judiciary in the preceding decade. On the contrary, there is a persuasive argument that a high degree of judicial (and prosecutorial) independence has shielded individuals from being held accountable.
On 29 April 2019 the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic (SCSR) refused to dissolve the political party Kotleba – Ľudová strana Naše Slovensko (People’s Party Our Slovakia). A five-judge administrative senate essentially found insufficient evidence to ban the party and in a press release pointed the finger at the plaintiff, the General Prosecutor’s office, for mishaps in how the case was argued.
The 30th of January 2019 will undoubtedly be remembered as a milestone day in the development of Slovak constitutional law, signaling the start of a new, second, stage of development. The first stage started on 1 September 1992 (the day of adoption of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic) and lasted until 30 January 2019. The second stage started with the Slovak Constitutional Court decision, of 30 January 2019, that an amendment to the Constitution is invalid for violating the material core of the Constitution.
In 2019, Slovakia selects nine out of thirteen constitutional court judges and the hearings of the candidates for the nominees for the vacant seats were publicly broadcast. The atmosphere of the hearings and the overall context of the 2019 appointment process, however, yield at least five, and not that optimistic, lessons.
The relatively short political history of the Slovak parliament has already witnessed several dramatic sessions. The latest drama unfolded during the night of 23 October in a parliamentary session to discuss and vote on an amendment of the Constitution and a new Act on the Constitutional Court that could have put Slovakia on a direct path to follow Hungary and Poland. The night turned out to be full of surprises.
2018 is shaping up to be one of the most important years in the history of the Slovak Constitutional Court (SCC). Nine of the currently sitting 13 judges will see their non-renewable terms expire in February 2019. The new appointments have the potential to be shrouded in drama, as they will take place against the background of a constitutional and political power struggle over SCC appointments between the President and the government, as well as broader judicial malaise in the country.
The CJEU’s judgment in Slovakia and Hungary v Council of 6 September 2017 raises important instutional questions. As the Court implicitly recognises the EU as the appropriate forum for taking effective action to address the emergency situation created by a sudden inflow of third country nationals, it adopts its tendency towards purposive and effectiveness-oriented jurisprudence to asylum law.
While the Slovak Parliament might not be the most obvious place to look for a (modest) rerun of the classic legal dilemma about unjust laws, constitutional enthusiasts might want to tune in for once, as the National Council (the official name of the assembly), was in recent weeks the site of a reinvigorated effort to invalidate amnesties granted in the late 1990s by the once aspiring authoritarian Vladimír Mečiar. The government has not yet reached a consensus but the impending vote holds more promise than the previous seven attempts.
László Sólyom ist ein Bürger der Europäischen Union und hat als solcher das Recht, aus seinem Heimatland Ungarn in die Slowakei zu reisen, wann immer er das möchte. Er muss nur seinen Ausweis vorlegen, dann müssen die Slowaken ihn reinlassen. Das befiehlt ihnen Art. 21 AEUV. Nun war Herr Sólyom 2009 nicht nur Unionsbürger, sondern auch noch Präsident der (damals noch so genannten) Republik Ungarn. Staatsoberhaupt also. Und Staatsoberhäupter muss man mitnichten einreisen lassen: Denn für sie gelten besondere völkerrechtliche Regeln, etwa der Diplomatenstatus. Eine derartige Besonderheit ist geeignet, die Person, die diesen Status genießt, von allen anderen Unionsbürgern abzugrenzen, ... continue reading
EU-Mitgliedsstaaten müssen sich nicht vertragen. Aber ihr Streit darf nicht so weit gehen, dass sie nicht mehr miteinander reden. Zu diesem Schluss kommt Generalanwalt Yves Bot in seinen heute veröffentlichten Schlussanträgen in einem Fall, der sich – jawohl – um Ungarn dreht. Genauer gesagt dreht er sich um den ehemaligen Staatspräsidenten László Sólyom: Dieser wollte 2009 in dem slovakischen Städtchen Komárno, in dem viele ethnische Ungarn wohnen, eine Rede halten, und zwar gegen den heftigen Protest der slovakischen Staatsführung. In der Slovakei gibt es eine große magyarische Minderheit, und in Ungarn sehen dies große Teile der Bevölkerung mit den heftigsten ... continue reading
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters