Slovakia’s Parliament has proposed a bill that would label NGOs receiving more than €5,000 annually from foreign sources or supported national NGOs as “foreign-funded organizations” (FFOs).
This bill has sparked significant concern, particularly around the added bureaucratic and financial burdens it would impose. Critics argue that it is designed to stigmatize and curb the activities of these organizations, rather than simply increase transparency.
Key Features of the Bill: 
- NGOs labeled as FFOs must disclose the identity and nationality of all donors and creditors contributing over €5,000 per year.
- Annual Reporting: NGOs with annual incomes exceeding €50,000 are required to submit an annual report to the Ministry of the Interior.
- Penalties: The Ministry can fine or dissolve NGOs failing to comply with these obligations.
Besides imposing stringent labeling and reporting requirements, the bill also mirrors similar legislation enacted in Hungary in 2017. This legislation was later struck down by the EU Court of Justice in 2021.
This similarity adds to the concern that Slovakia might be heading towards more restrictive measures on civil society, similar to those previously imposed by Hungary.
Context and Implications:
- Transparency vs. Limitation: While the proposed law claims to promote transparency in NGO funding, its actual impact could be to demonize NGOs critical of the government.
- Comparative Legislation: The resemblance to Hungary’s overturned law suggests a potential infringement on international human rights standards, particularly those protecting the right to organize and receive funding.
- International Response: Key international bodies, including the EU, might view this bill as a violation of Slovakia’s commitments under international treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Reactions and Criticism:
- Human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International Slovakia, have voiced strong opposition to the bill. They highlight its potential to severely restrict civil society operations. The bill is seen as a “full-frontal assault” on the NGO sector, risking the very existence of many organizations.
- Stigmatization: The labeling requirement could also stigmatize NGOs, damaging their reputations and diminishing public trust in their work.
Historical Context:
- Hungary’s Precedent: Hungary’s similar NGO law led to international pushback and was ultimately repealed following a ruling by the EU Court of Justice, which cited it as a breach of EU law.
- European Standards: Slovakia’s alignment with such restrictive measures runs counter to the broader European standards that emphasize support and protection for civil society groups.
Can anyone elaborate on the bureaucratic burdens this bill could impose on NGOs?
It likely means more paperwork and compliance costs. Transparency isn’t bad, but the threshold seems too low.