Search
Generic filters

Supported by:

23 June 2025

Haunted by Text

Slovak PM Fico renewed his attempts to amend Slovakia’s Constitution. The most controversial provisions are a “national identity safeguard” limiting the effect of international and supranational law, and a definition of sex as strictly binary. After securing backing from some opposition members, his cabinet has submitted the amendment to parliament for debate and a vote. While public mobilisation against the proposed amendment proposal is important, legal scholars and NGOs should avoid using language that might reinforce the perception that the formally powerful Constitutional Court lacks the authority to strike down or reinterpret such changes in line with constitutional values. Continue reading >>
0
14 September 2021

The People v Their Representatives

On July 7, 2021, the Slovak Constitutional Court found a referendum initiative on a snap election unconstitutional. The case presented the Court with an unresolved question, whether the people can remove their elected representatives from office ahead of time. The Court’s answer was a qualified no. When people resort to direct democracy tools, the Court found, they are not only bound by explicit subject-matter restrictions on the use of referenda but also implicit norms under the doctrine of the material core. The people have a great power to make or unmake constitutional law but cannot breach it in an irregular use of a referendum. Continue reading >>
0
03 December 2020

On Collision Course with the Material Core of the Slovak Constitution

Last week on Tuesday, the Constitutional Committee of the Slovak Parliament discussed the most extraordinary subject in a meeting attended by a most extraordinary guest. The Committee was reviewing a draft constitutional amendment on judicial reform that would, among other things, take away the power of the Constitutional Court to review constitutional amendments. At the meeting, the Minister of Justice and MPs discussed potential benefits and drawbacks of stripping the Court of the jurisdiction to review constitutional amendments, with the President of the Court seated next to them. The proposal represents the last escalation in the conflict about who has the final word on the contents of the Constitution. Continue reading >>
Go to Top