In March 2024, a group of MPs in Slovakia proposed amendments to civil society organisations’ (‘CSO’) framework laws that were conceptually similar to the “foreign agent” or “foreign interference” laws from countries like Hungary, Russia or Georgia. One year later, the law is back on the agenda of the Parliament. This time it comes with significant changes shifting towards regulating the “lobbying activities of CSOs”.
Although the new draft amendments were shared just a few hours before the Constitutional Committee meeting, they were approved by the committee on the same day. They will be voted on in the second reading during the next parliamentary session starting, on March 25.
According to the analysis of the Council of Europe Expert Council on NGO Law the 2024 amendments contradicted European standards on freedom of association and they were part of a broader attack on civic freedoms in the country. The current amendments are just as concerning.
Why are the proposed amendments problematic?
- Harmful labelling and singling out CSOs as regulated entities. The new amendments remove the concept of ‘organisations with foreign support’ as the legislators recognise in the explanatory note that this could potentially go against the applicable EU legislation, as interpreted by the European Court of Justice. Instead, they introduce a different label for CSOs actively participating in decision-making: this is referred to as ‘lobbying activities’. While Slovakia does not have a comprehensive law on interest representation by professional lobbyists, the proposed amendments would exclusively regulate CSO ‘lobbying activities’ and introduce extensive quarterly reporting obligations for these organisations.
- Discouraging public participation through a vague definition of lobbying. The law defines lobbying as an activity that ‘directly or indirectly’ influences a decision maker. Such a broad definition of lobbying activities would likely include not only direct meetings with MPs or other decision-makers, but also organising workshops, media campaigns or preparing analytical documents. This would significantly impact organisations’ right to participate in policy and decision-making, and close opportunities for meaningful civil dialogue.
- Heavy reporting obligations impose an excessive administrative burden. The new amendments maintain the proposed increased transparency requirements for CSO funding, including extensive reporting on corporate and individual donors, with the added risk of dissolving CSOs for administrative errors.
- Applying obligations to associations registered outside of Slovakia, raising questions from the EU law perspective. Additionally, the draft extends all obligations also to associations established in accordance with laws of other countries and having a legal seat abroad, if they conduct activities in Slovakia. This would likely require an assessment of its implications from the EU law perspective, including the proposed EU directive on cross-border associations.
The explanatory note uses similar arguments to justify the proposed amendments. It argues that they are needed to bring transparency in CSOs’ funding and increase their credibility. To this end, however, the Council of Europe already explained that the management of CSOs, including their funding transparency, is primarily the responsibility of their members and governing bodies, not the role of state institutions. Some transparency measures are justified in the case of state financial support, but legislators must demonstrate the legitimacy of other laws aiming at increasing CSO transparency. Despite that, the draft amendments were not properly consulted even before the first reading. Legislators, without providing room for consultation, rushed to approve the new draft before the second reading starts on March 25.
How do other countries regulate lobbying?
Currently, there is no law in any other EU or OECD countries that specifically regulates just the lobbying of CSOs. On the contrary, there are numerous examples where CSOs (either all or small-size ones), or activities typically conducted by CSOs, are excluded from lobbying laws (for example in Lithuania, Slovenia, Austria, Finland and Ireland). Even in countries where self-regulatory mechanisms for lobbying exist (as in Sweden and Croatia), there are no specific provisions for CSOs. The new proposed amendments in Slovakia therefore appear just to switch the labelling of CSOs from ‘organisations with foreign support’ to ‘lobbyists’ while pursuing the same objective – to delegitimise and silence critical voices.