Slovakia’s “Russian Law” episode: How a government tested the limits of civic space

When the fourth government of Robert Fico returned to power in late 2023, civil society in Slovakia quickly became a central political target. The confrontation that followed was structured and escalating – moving from rhetoric to legislation, and from legislation to administrative pressure when the courts intervened. Eduard Marček, EFA executive director and head of the Slovak Fundraising Centre, reports on the situation.

From its first days in office, the fourth government of Robert Fico framed a segment of Slovak NGOs – particularly those watchdogs active in anti-corruption, rule-of-law advocacy, and public policy – as politically biased and foreign-influenced. Organizations such as Transparency International Slovakia, Stop the Corruption Foundation and Via Iuris were repeatedly portrayed as actors operating “like political parties” but without public accountability. This narrative laid the groundwork for regulatory action.

The “Russian Law”

In 2024 and 2025, the coalition advanced an amendment to the NGO law with no expert discussion that soon became known domestically as the “Russian Law.” The original proposal required organizations receiving foreign funding of more than €5,000 to label themselves as “organizations with foreign support,” disclose donors publicly, and comply with expanded reporting obligations. Early drafts also considered classifying NGOs (and only NGOs, not businesses or other actors) as lobbyists. The parallels with Russian and Georgian legislation were widely noted, and international criticism swiftly followed. Under mounting pressure – including concerns raised at EU level – the government softened the terminology at the last minute, removing the explicit “foreign agent” label. Yet the core obligations remained, and Parliament passed the law in April 2025.

Civil society fights back

The proposal and ultimate adoption of the law triggered an immediate backlash. Civil society organizations coordinated across platforms, organized public protests, issued joint statements, and mobilized legal expertise to challenge the legislation. The response was unusually cohesive: NGOs formed broad coalitions, engaged European partners, and framed the issue as a constitutional matter rather than a sectoral dispute. Within days of adoption, opposition parties and the Public Defender of Rights filed a motion to the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic requesting constitutional review.

The most controversial element was the mandatory donor disclosure – with NGOs receiving significant contributions required to publish the names of donors above a €5,000 threshold. Critics argued that this endangered privacy, exposed donors to harassment, and created a chilling effect on philanthropy. Additional reporting and registry requirements also increased compliance burdens, particularly for mid-sized and smaller organizations.

Even before the Constitutional Court ruled, the political campaign translated into practice. Government-initiated financial audits targeted selected NGOs, presented publicly as evidence of systemic misuse of public funds. Yet the official audit findings revealed irregularities amounting to roughly 0.5% of the total controlled sum – hardly indicative of widespread abuse. Despite this, the narrative of suspected misconduct persisted. Within the sector, these waves of inspections and public statements were widely described as harassing and bullying – designed less to correct financial mismanagement than to intimidate and discredit non-governmental organizations.

Circumventing the Court ruling 

In December 2025, the Constitutional Court struck down the law as unconstitutional, holding that mandatory donor disclosure violated privacy and fundamental rights protected under the Slovak Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. The ruling rejected the framework in its entirety, and the law formally lost effect on 4 February 2026.

The government, however, did not abandon its approach. On 18 February 2026, it adopted a new resolution – this time not a law, but an executive directive – ordering intensified oversight of NGOs across multiple state authorities. District offices, tax authorities, labour inspectors, ministries, the Public Procurement Office, and the Data Protection Authority were instructed to expand controls over NGOs’ financial management, use of public funds, labour law compliance, and GDPR adherence. Annual reports from these inspections are to be consolidated and presented to the Cabinet each October.

Rather than labelling organizations as foreign agents, the state is mobilizing existing regulatory instruments to subject NGOs to heightened scrutiny. The formal justification remains transparency and proper use of public funds.

Further undermining of the sector

Other tactics are also being used to undermine the sector, including a deliberate strategy of defunding critical areas of civil society – designed specifically to limit and weaken nature protection, human rights protection, culture, and development aid. Analysis by the Platform for Democracy with the Open Society Foundation shows that funding losses in these areas reached €16m in 2024 and 2025. These were caused by a range of state interventions from administratively excluding NGOs from eligibility for the Green Education Fund (a loss of €823,000), to blocking approximately €5m from the European LIFE program by refusing mandatory co-financing, and negative intervention in the expert committees of 513 projects by the new Arts Support Fund Council (losing €3.5m).

For many in the sector, the cumulative effect of these measures constitutes a sustained campaign of pressure – intended not only to regulate but to intimidate.

Diversifying to build resilience

At the same time, the pressure has generated an unintended consequence: rising resilience within the sector. Many organizations have accelerated diversification of revenue streams, strengthening individual fundraising to reduce dependency on state resources. Crowdfunding campaigns, small-donor programs, and community-based giving have expanded. The process is exhausting, but also empowering.

For fundraisers and philanthropy leaders across Europe, Slovakia illustrates how restrictions on civic space can unfold incrementally – through rhetoric that reframes NGOs as political adversaries, through legal experiments that probe constitutional limits, and through administrative escalation when courts intervene. The Slovak case shows how civic space can be pressured inside the European Union without formally dismantling democratic institutions, testing not only constitutional safeguards but also the resilience of activists and organizations, donor trust and independent fundraising ecosystems.

Eduard Marček