Slovakia’s Constitutional Court Blocks Church Donor Disclosure Rules

Slovakia’s Top Court Blocks Church Donor Disclosure Rules

Slovakia’s Constitutional Court has declared unconstitutional a 2025 amendment that would have forced churches to register and publicly disclose donor information, marking another victory for civil society groups in the country. The ruling, announced on February 27, 2026, follows a similar decision in December 2025, when the court struck down a “June amendment” targeting non-governmental organizations (NGOs) over concerns it violated human rights and freedoms.

The church-related amendment, though not explicitly named in available sources, aligns with a broader pattern of legislative proposals in Slovakia that sought to impose strict transparency requirements on religious and civil society organizations. The Constitutional Court’s intervention suggests a growing judicial pushback against what critics have described as excessive state oversight.

Legal Precedent: From NGOs to Religious Groups

The February 27 decision echoes the court’s December 2025 ruling on the NGO law, which required organizations to disclose donor details and file public financial statements. That amendment, dubbed the “June amendment” due to its introduction in June 2024, was challenged by opposition lawmakers and Public Ombudsman Róbert Dobrovodský. The Constitutional Court found it violated the Slovak Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly protections for freedom of association and privacy.

Dobrovodský, whose office had previously criticized the NGO law, did not immediately comment on the church-related ruling. However, his earlier stance—arguing that the transparency requirements were disproportionate and enabled excessive state intervention—likely mirrors the court’s reasoning in the latest case.

The Venice Commission, an advisory body of the Council of Europe, had also weighed in on the NGO law in October 2025, stating that its donor disclosure and supervision powers risked interfering with freedom of association under Articles 11 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Broader Implications for Civil Society

The Constitutional Court’s rulings come as Slovakia grapples with tensions between government oversight and civil liberties. While the court has blocked two high-profile transparency measures, a 2024 proposal to label NGOs receiving over 5,000 euros as “organizations with foreign support” remains stalled, according to Philea, a European philanthropy network.

Philea, which advocates for civil society, welcomed the December 2025 NGO ruling, calling it a step toward creating an “enabling environment for philanthropy” in Europe. The organization’s European philanthropy manifesto had previously criticized the June amendment for creating barriers to funding and potential conflicts with EU law.

Legal experts suggest the court’s decisions may deter future attempts to impose similar restrictions. However, the absence of a specific name or date for the church-related amendment in verified sources means the exact scope of the ruling—whether it applies retroactively or targets new legislation—remains unclear.

What Comes Next?

With two major transparency laws struck down, the next phase will likely focus on whether the government introduces new versions of the legislation or seeks alternative ways to regulate donor disclosures. The Constitutional Court’s rulings have set a high bar for such measures, requiring any future proposals to demonstrate compliance with fundamental rights protections.

For now, civil society groups in Slovakia can take comfort in the court’s intervention, which reinforces protections for both NGOs and religious organizations. Yet the broader political context—including ongoing debates about foreign influence and state oversight—means the issue is far from resolved.

One certainty is that Róbert Dobrovodský, whose office has been a vocal critic of restrictive transparency laws, will continue to monitor developments. His role as Public Ombudsman ensures that any future proposals will face scrutiny under human rights and constitutional principles.

Unanswered Questions

• Specifics of the church-related amendment: The exact language, date of introduction, and targeted religious groups are not detailed in verified materials. Without these, the full implications of the ruling cannot be assessed.
• Government response: There is no indication of how the Slovak government plans to proceed, whether through legislative revisions or alternative enforcement mechanisms.
• Impact on religious organizations: The ruling’s practical effects—such as whether churches must now retroactively comply with past disclosure requirements—are unclear.

As Slovakia navigates these uncertainties, the Constitutional Court’s rulings serve as a reminder of the delicate balance between transparency and civil liberties—a balance that will continue to shape the country’s legal and political landscape.