The European Commission has formally initiated infringement proceedings against the Slovak Republic, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing tension between Brussels and Bratislava regarding the rule of law. As of November 21, 2025, the Commission issued a letter of formal notice to the Slovak government, citing fundamental violations of the European Union’s legal order arising from recent constitutional amendments. These reforms, which entered into force on November 1, 2025, strike at the heart of the Union’s foundational architecture by explicitly challenging the principle of the primacy of EU law. The Commission’s action underscores the severity of the legal divergence, positing that the new provisions contravene the principles of autonomy, effectiveness, and the uniform application of Union law—doctrines established over decades of jurisprudence, tracing back to the landmark Van Gend en Loos and Costa v. ENEL decisions.
At the core of this legal dispute is the amendment to Article 7 of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic. The revised text empowers Slovak authorities, including the judiciary, to independently assess whether and to what extent European Union law, including judgments from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), applies within the domestic legal system. This provision effectively attempts to domesticate the applicability of supranational law, subordinating it to national review in matters deemed to concern “national identity” or “sovereignty in value, cultural, and ethical issues.” Such a unilateral assertion of competence purports to circumvent the supranational character of the EU legal order, creating a direct conflict with the obligations Slovakia undertook upon its accession. The Commission has articulated that even when a Member State exercises its constituent power to amend its constitution, it cannot do so in a manner that obstructs the binding nature of Union law.
Beyond the structural challenge to EU legal supremacy, the constitutional package codifies specific social and ethical definitions that have drawn sharp criticism from international human rights bodies. The amendments rigidly define sex as a biological determination solely of man and woman, restrict marriage and adoption rights exclusively to heterosexual couples, and mandate parental consent for sex education in schools. These changes are framed by the Fico administration as essential measures to preserve Slovak sovereignty and cultural heritage. Prime Minister Robert Fico has publicly embraced the confrontation, stating he “welcomes this conflict” and rejecting the notion that international organizations should dictate domestic social policy. This rhetoric suggests a protracted legal and political battle, with the government signaling it has no intention of immediate capitulation.
Procedurally, the issuance of the letter of formal notice opens a two-month window for the Slovak government to submit its observations and justify the legislation. Should the response prove unsatisfactory—a likely outcome given the entrenched political positions—the Commission is empowered to issue a reasoned opinion, the final administrative step before referring the matter to the CJEU. The potential for financial penalties and a deepening of the rift within the bloc is substantial. This development occurs against a backdrop of declining rule of law metrics, with Slovakia currently ranking 36th out of 146 nations in the 2025 Rule of Law Index. We will continue to monitor the Commission’s enforcement actions and the forthcoming legal arguments from Bratislava, as this case promises to be a defining test for the enforceability of EU law in the face of constitutional resistance.
