Slovakia’s 2025 Constitutional Amendment - Traditional Values and National Identity in the Constitution

https://doi.org/10.63189/HKMA4624

In September 2025, Slovakia’s National Council passed a constitutional amendment that introduced several traditional value provisions into the Slovak Constitution.^[1] The amendment narrowly passed with the minimum 90 votes required in the 150-member parliament. Lawmakers framed the changes as “safeguarding the traditions and cultural heritage” of the nation against perceived liberal influences.^[2] The changes cover family law, education, gender recognition, labor rights and assertions of national sovereignty.^[3] Below is an overview of the key changes introduced by the amendment:

The Principle of Legality and Constitutional Values - The 2025 amendment modifies Article 2(2) of the Slovak Constitution, which includes the principle of legality. The previous wording stated: State authorities may act only on the basis of the Constitution, within its limits, and in the manner laid down by law. This has been expanded and reworded to the following: State authorities may act only on the basis of the Constitution, within its limits, in accordance with its principles and values, and in the manner laid down by law. Including the phrase principles and values obliges all state bodies to reflect these in their actions, not only the explicit rules in the constitution. According to the explanatory memorandum, this was included to show that the Constitution is not only a legal, but also a value based framework for governance. This change ensures that legality includes fidelity to the Constitution’s spirit, not only its letter.

National Identity and Sovereignty - The amendment adds two new clauses to Article 7 of the Constitution. It states, that Slovakia “retains its sovereignty, in particular in matters of national identity” especially regarding “fundamental cultural and ethical issues”. The amendment does not detail what those matters of national identity are, but from the parliamentary debates during the legislative process we know that mainly the protection of life, human dignity, family and parenthood, culture, and language were mentioned. It further stipulates that nothing in the Constitution (or constitutional laws) shall be interpreted as consenting to the transfer of the exercise of Slovakia’s rights in these national identity matters. This provision introduces a constitutional safeguard against delegating power in culturally sensitive domains. The explanatory memorandum to the amendment states that this is meant to affirm the primacy of the Slovak Constitution in areas not ceded to the European Union. This change has been perhaps the most widely debated. Critics point out that terms like “national identity” and “fundamental cultural and ethical issues” remain vague. The legislator however says, that it is in line with Article 4 of the EU Treaty^[4] which respects the Member States’ national identities. Under the TEU, the notion of national identity operates as a limit on the competences of the European Union - it protects each Member State’s fundamental constitutional structures. Article 4(2) TEU was designed to overcome the rigid notion of absolute primacy of EU law.^[5] The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission has cautioned^[6] Slovakia that these concepts must not conflict with Slovakia’s international obligations under EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights.^[7] In other words, asserting sovereignty is not illegitimate, but it can not become a pretext for disregarding binding international commitments. The provision has been described by Prime Minister Robert Fico as creating a dam against progressivism in Slovakia’s legal system.^[8] The constitutional invocation of heritage seeks to recognize the cultural and historical foundations of the nation and shows how constitutional identity can acknowledge tradition while remaining open and pluralist.^[9] The notion that a constitution can legitimately embody a moral or cultural vision is not new in European constitutional thought. Constitutional democracy ultimately depends on pre-legal moral and cultural traditions that sustain its social cohesion.^[10] The amended Article 7 amounts to a constitutional guarantee that national cultural-ethical values will trump supranational norms whenever the two are perceived to conflict in those fields.

International Treaties and the Constitution - The amendment also revises Article 7(5) of the Slovak Constitution to clarify the hierarchy between international treaties and domestic law. It states that “International treaties on human rights and fundamental freedoms, international treaties for which implementation by law is not required, and international treaties which directly establish rights or obligations of natural or legal persons and which have been ratified and promulgated in the manner laid down by law shall take precedence over laws; this does not apply if these international treaties are in conflict with this Constitution.” This makes it explicitly clear that ratified international treaties will prevail over ordinary laws, but not over the Constitution itself. This is the manifestation of the sovereignty of the Slovak constitutional order. If a conflict arises between an international treaty obligation and the Constitution, the latter prevails. Critics caution that the new phrasing could be used to justify non-compliance with human-rights judgments or international conventions by simply claiming constitutional conflict. Here it is important to note however, that this is not a new concept in Slovak law. The doctrine has been long recognized in Slovak constitutional jurisprudence. The Constitutional Court, in decision II. ÚS 91/1999, had held that human-rights treaties enjoy priority over national legislation, but not over the Constitution.^[11] The amendment merely elevates this doctrine directly into the Constitution.

Recognition of only two sexes – The Constitution now only recognizes two sexes, male and female, defined as “biologically determined”. This introduces gender binarity at the constitutional level. In practice this means that Slovakia will not legally acknowledge any gender identity outside the binary male and female. A new Article (Article 52a) was added, stating: “The Slovak Republic recognises only the biologically determined sexes of male and female.” This bars recognition of non-binary or third genders. The amendment’s drafters did indicate that sex can only be changed for serious reason, under procedures set by law. This suggests that legal gender change might remain possible – provided that it is medically indicated and under very restrictive conditions. This provision aligns with existing constitutional norms that presuppose a gender binary. A clear distinction of the recognition of two sexes had not been present in the Constitution prior to this amendment, but several provisions had implied a binary view of genders previously – such as the protection of women in pregnancy (Article 41(2)), special labour protections for women (Article 38(1)), and the constitutional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman (Article 41(1)). So the amendment constitutionalises what had already been the de facto legal framework - Slovak law already recognised only male and female categories, before introducing this provision in the Constitution.

Restriction on Adoption – Adoption is largely restricted to married couples. The new Article 41(5) provides that a minor child may only be adopted by spouses (in Slovakia a married man and a woman), by a step-parent married to the child’s parent, or by a surviving spouse of the child’s parent. Single individuals can only adopt exceptionally, and if it is in the best interests of the child. The court decides about adoption in all cases. Since marriage is defined in the constitution – and has been since 2014 – as a union between a man and a woman, the amendment clearly centers a heteronormative family structure as the constitutional norm for adoption. It bears mentioning that this is not entirely new, this provision had existed prior to the amendment in Slovakia’s Family Act.^[12] The amendment elevates this existing practice to a constitutional mandate.

Parental Consent for Children’s Education - The amendment affirms that parents (or legal guardians) have the right to decide whether their child will participate in educational activities that go beyond the official state curriculum. At the same time, the Constitution now requires that the state educational program itself conform to the Constitution. Here it bears mentioning that during the legislative process this educational clause has changed significantly. In prior iterations of the text it talked about sex education for minors with the following wording: “Education and schooling of children in the area of intimate life formation and sexual behavior may be provided only with the consent of the legal representative.”This would have meant that parents would have the right to decide whether their child will participate in educational activities that go beyond the official state curriculum or touch on matters of morality, intimacy, or sexuality. In the end the wording of the final is less specific, and it gives parents the right to decide on a child’s participation only when the school activity is beyond the state educational program and that state educational program must be in line with the Constitution. It constitutionalizes parental control over school-provided content that exceeds the state program. Core curriculum remains compulsory, though it must now align with constitutional values. The Venice Commission acknowledged that empowering parents in education is not contrary to European standards, given that Protocol 1, Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights^[13] protects parents’ rights to ensure education in conformity with their convictions. But the Commission emphasized that this parental right “is not absolute and must be balanced against the rights of the child and the State’s duty to provide” an objective, inclusive education.^[14]

Equal pay guarantee – While some of the previously discussed provisions are conservative in their nature, there is a provision that is very progressive and has overall been hailed as a very welcome inclusion in the constitution – this is Article 36. Article 36 targets economic and social rights (especially labor rights). This article was amended to include a new paragraph, stating that “Equality between men and women in remuneration for work done shall be guaranteed.” The Venice Commission noted that it was an “important step towards gender equality”.^[15] Slovak law already prohibited sex-based wage discrimination, but the amendment’s drafters themselves cited the persistent gender pay gap as justification for a constitutional guarantee. This way the principle gains strength and greater permanence.

The path to adopting the amendment followed formal legislative procedure. The process itself began in January 2025, when the government of Prime Minister Robert Fico initiated the draft constitutional law. The proposal proceeded through an inter-ministerial and public consultation phase between 28 January and 17 February 2025. During this consultation period (15 working days long), various stakeholders could submit comments. A total of 117 comments were received – mostly from various state bodies, very limited comments came from the general public and non-governmental organizations. Out of the comments received, two were partially accepted in revisions to the draft. Alongside the formal comments, the Prime Minister’s office convened a meeting with several leading legal experts to discuss the amendments.The draft amendment was approved by the Government and formally submitted to the National Council on 7 March 2025. In the legislature, the bill went through the constitutionally required three readings. During the first reading (general debate) on 9 April 2025, the broad strokes of the amendment were discussed. It moved to committee scrutiny and second reading, where members of parliament proposed additional amendments to the text. The second reading concluded on 17 June 2025. After June, the process experienced an unusual pause. The third (final) reading was scheduled for late September. This delay was partly due to summer recess but it also allowed time for external input - specifically from the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission. The Commission was invited (via the Parliamentary Assembly’s monitoring committee) to provide an urgent opinion on the draft. The Venice Commission sent a delegation to Bratislava in August 2025 to meet with government officials, parliamentarians (both majority and opposition), the Ombudsman, the Constitutional Court, civil society groups, and others. This engagement was meant to gather facts and perspectives. The urgent opinion was issued on 24 September 2025, just one day before the planned parliamentary vote.^[16] The Commission offered a detailed analysis and key recommendations, but it is important to note that by the time the urgent opinion was released, no substantial changes to the text were procedurally possible. Under Slovak parliamentary rules, a third reading can only correct technical or linguistic issues.

On 25 September 2025, the National Council held the decisive vote. The amendment was adopted with exactly 90 votes in favor – which is exactly the minimum required for a constitutional amendment to pass. Following parliamentary approval, the amendment went to the President of the Republic for promulgation. The Slovak President has the power to sign constitutional bills into law but no veto power over constitutional amendments in the way they might for ordinary laws. Since the Constitution itself was being changed, and the president cannot refuse to implement a duly adopted constitutional law. However, one option under discussion was whether the President could or should request a constitutional review by the Constitutional Court before signing, if there were concerns about the amendment’s compatibility with fundamental principles or international obligations. In the end, the President did not delay promulgation. The amendments were signed into law and took effect as stipulated by the law’s final provision.

Throughout the legislative journey, Slovak institutions like the Public Defender of Rights (Ombudsperson) and various ministries had opportunities to weigh in. The Ombudsperson was critical of certain provisions, especially regarding potential human rights infringements (e.g. expressing concern that the changes could violate privacy or equality guarantees).^[17] According to Róbert Dobrovodský, the ombudsperson, the term national identity is vague and undefined in Slovak legislation or case law. He also argued that the sovereignty clause could place Slovakia in violation of Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,^[18] which prohibits states from invoking domestic law as justification for failing to fulfill international treaty obligations.

The European Union institutions also became involved at the stage of voicing concerns. The European Commission and European Parliament were lobbied by Slovak opposition figures and NGOs to intervene. Of course, the EU has limited formal say over a member’s constitutional text.. In early October 2025, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) issued a statement of concern. In it they noted that the amendments “may conflict with the shared values and legal obligations” of the EU.^[19]

It is important to note, that while there has been ongoing scrutiny of the amendment – the process was in line with Slovak law. The government proposed, consultations occurred (albeit briefly), parliament debated and approved in three readings, and the president signed.

Slovakia’s 2025 constitutional amendment did not occur in isolation. It is part of a broader trend in parts of Central and Eastern Europe. Hungary and Poland have engaged in their own constitutional or legal battles over similar issues of family, gender, and national identity in recent years. These constitutional changes represent a significant assertive statement from these countries. From an academic perspective, this raises interesting questions about constitutional design and minority rights. Here, the biggest driver behind the amendment was to protect what the legislator views as fundamental to Slovak society - the family, children’s upbringing, national moral order, cultural heritage – over external pressures.

As mentioned throughout this text - the values codified in Slovakia’s amendment did not appear overnight.They have deep roots in the country’s legal system (for instance, a constitutional amendment in 2014 already defined marriage as between a man and a woman in Slovakia; the Family Act has always presumed gendered parent roles; the Constitutional Court has always considered the supremacy of the Constitution over International Treaties). So the 2025 changes can be viewed as the culmination of a longer trajectory. They do not introduce brand new doctrines to our Constitution but constitutionalize an existing worldview prevalent in Slovak legislation. Of course, the cost of this is a potential heightened friction with international frameworks. Many of the amendment’s elements set up potential conflicts with EU and international law that Slovakia will have to navigate. The coming years will be a testing ground. For instance, if an EU directive or court judgment requires recognition of something Slovakia now constitutionally forbids (imagine a hypothetical future EU law on recognizing transgender identities or on cross-border recognition of same-sex parenthood), Slovakia can invoke its new Article 7. It is an evolving debate - How should a society’s core values be defined, and who gets to define them?

On one hand, the amendment can be viewed as the democratic expression of a majority that wishes to preserve certain cultural values in the face of rapid social change. On the other hand, codifying these provisions at the constitutional level pushes Slovakia into uncharted waters regarding its international relationships and internal cohesion.

In a broader sense, Slovakia’s amendment poses a thought-provoking example of a country attempting to define its identity through constitutional law. Its implications will unfold in the coming years, and it will likely be studied alongside similar moves in the region as democracies worldwide struggle with how to respond to social change. In Slovakia’s case, the 2025 amendment has set in stone certain answers to the questions of family, gender, and sovereignty, but it has also sparked new questions about Slovakia’s direction in the European family of nations. In a country where historical tradition and European integration can collide, the amendment stands as an expression of national values and a countercurrent to liberal social change.

^[1] Constitution of the Slovak Republic, No. 460/1992 Coll. (as amended).

^[2] Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic. (2025). Dôvodová správa k návrhu ústavného zákona, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa Ústava Slovenskej republiky č. 460/1992 Zb. v znení neskorších predpisov [Explanatory Report to the Draft Constitutional Act Amending and Supplementing the Constitution of the Slovak Republic No. 460/1992 Coll.]. Bratislava: Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic.

^[3] National Council of the Slovak Republic. (2025). Draft Constitutional Act amending and supplementing the Constitution of the Slovak Republic No. 460/1992 Coll., as amended. Bratislava: National Council of the Slovak Republic.

^[4] European Union. (2012). Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union, Article 4. Official Journal of the European Union, C 326, 13–46.

^[5] von Bogdandy, A., & Schill, S. (2011). Overcoming absolute primacy: Respect for national identity under the Lisbon Treaty. Common Market Law Review, 48(1), 141–196.

^[6] European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission). (2025). Urgent Opinion on the draft amendments to the Constitution of the Slovak Republic (Opinion No. 1255/2025, CDL-PI(2025)011). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

^[7] Council of Europe. (1950). Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14). Rome, 4 November 1950.

^[8] Lopatka, J. (2025, September 26). Slovakia amends constitution to promote ‘national identity’. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/world/slovakia-amends-constitution-promote-national-identity-2025-09-26/.

^[9] Schanda, B. (2022). The Christian roots of Hungary’s Fundamental Law. Central European Journal of Comparative Law, 3(1), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.47078/2022.1.195-202

^[10] Böckenförde, E.-W. (1991). State, society, and liberty: Studies in political theory and constitutional law. Oxford: Berg Publishers. ISBN 9780854965953.

^[11] Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic. (1999). Decision No. II. ÚS 91/1999. Bratislava: Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic.

^[12] Family Act, No. 36/2005 Coll. on Family and on amendment and supplementation of certain acts (as amended).

^[13] Council of Europe. (1952). Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 2. Paris, 20 March 1952.

^[14] European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission). (2025). Urgent Opinion on the draft amendments to the Constitution of the Slovak Republic (Opinion No. 1255/2025, CDL-PI(2025)011). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

^[15] European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission). (2025). Urgent Opinion on the draft amendments to the Constitution of the Slovak Republic (Opinion No. 1255/2025, CDL-PI(2025)011). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

^[16] Council of Europe. (2025, September 24). Slovak Republic: Venice Commission issues urgent opinion on the draft amendments to the Constitution. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/slovak-republic-venice-commission-issues-urgent-opinion-on-the-draft-amendments-to-the-constitution.

^[17] Public Defender of Rights of the Slovak Republic. (2025, September 30). Statement on the amendment to the Constitution of the Slovak Republic. Retrieved from https://vop.gov.sk/stanovisko-k-novele-ustavy-sr/.

^[18] United Nations. (1969). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Vienna, 23 May 1969. United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331.

^[19] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2025, October 7). FRA statement on recent developments affecting fundamental rights in the EU. Retrieved from https://fra.europa.eu/en/news/2025/fra-statement-recent-developments-affecting-fundamental-rights-eu.

References

Böckenförde, E.-W. (1991). State, society, and liberty: Studies in political theory and constitutional law. Oxford: Berg Publishers. ISBN 9780854965953.

Constitution of the Slovak Republic, No. 460/1992 Coll. (as amended).

Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic. (1999). Decision No. II. ÚS 91/1999. Bratislava: Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic.

Council of Europe. (1950). Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14). Rome, 4 November 1950.

Council of Europe. (1952). Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 2. Paris, 20 March 1952.

Council of Europe. (2025, September 24). Slovak Republic: Venice Commission issues urgent opinion on the draft amendments to the Constitution. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/slovak-republic-venice-commission-issues-urgent-opinion-on-the-draft-amendments-to-the-constitution.

European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission). (2025). Urgent Opinion on the draft amendments to the Constitution of the Slovak Republic (Opinion No. 1255/2025, CDL-PI(2025)011). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2025, October 7). FRA statement on recent developments affecting fundamental rights in the EU. Retrieved from https://fra.europa.eu/en/news/2025/fra-statement-recent-developments-affecting-fundamental-rights-eu.

European Union. (2012). Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union, Article 4. Official Journal of the European Union, C 326, 13–46.

Family Act, No. 36/2005 Coll. on Family and on amendment and supplementation of certain acts (as amended).

Lopatka, J. (2025, September 26). Slovakia amends constitution to promote ‘national identity’. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/world/slovakia-amends-constitution-promote-national-identity-2025-09-26/.

Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic. (2025). Dôvodová správa k návrhu ústavného zákona, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa Ústava Slovenskej republiky č. 460/1992 Zb. v znení neskorších predpisov [Explanatory Report to the Draft Constitutional Act Amending and Supplementing the Constitution of the Slovak Republic No. 460/1992 Coll.]. Bratislava: Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic.

National Council of the Slovak Republic. (2025). Draft Constitutional Act amending and supplementing the Constitution of the Slovak Republic No. 460/1992 Coll., as amended. Bratislava: National Council of the Slovak Republic.

Public Defender of Rights of the Slovak Republic. (2025, September 30). Statement on the amendment to the Constitution of the Slovak Republic. Retrieved from https://vop.gov.sk/stanovisko-k-novele-ustavy-sr/.

Schanda, B. (2022). The Christian roots of Hungary’s Fundamental Law. Central European Journal of Comparative Law, 3(1), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.47078/2022.1.195-202.

United Nations. (1969). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Vienna, 23 May 1969. United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331.

von Bogdandy, A., & Schill, S. (2011). Overcoming absolute primacy: Respect for national identity under the Lisbon Treaty. Common Market Law Review, 48(1), 141–196.