Search
Subscribe
At the February 11 plenary session, the European Parliament held a debate entitled “The Rule of Law, Fundamental Rights and the Misuse of EU Funds in Slovakia: The Need for an EU Response.” Within the framework of the debate, the issue of the Beneš Decrees in Slovakia and the situation of the Hungarian community in Slovakia were also addressed. However, several Members objected that these matters did not receive distinct and adequate emphasis as standalone issues.
In his testimony, Michał Wawrykiewicz (EPP/PPE) drew attention to the fact that any practice, which based on post-war legislation enables the deprivation of property on an ethnic basis is unacceptable, particularly where the possibility of effective legal remedy is also limited. He emphasized that Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU protects the right to property; Article 47 guarantees the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial; and Article 11 safeguards freedom of expression. He called upon the European Commission to examine whether the EU legal order and the fundamental values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on EU are being infringed.
Sven Simon (PPE) and Dóra Dávid (PPE) likewise highlighted the protection of private property and the principle of legal certainty, emphasizing that ethnic origin cannot determine the scope of citizens’ rights within the EU, with reference to the situation of the Hungarian minority. Miriam Lexmann (PPE) stated that developments affecting the protection of national minorities’ property rights are being monitored.
In his contribution, László András (PfE) called for the consistent application of equal standards and for coherent EU-level protection of national minorities.
Csaba Dömötör, Viktória Ferenc and Annamária Vicsek (PfE) drew attention to the fact that the concerns affecting the Hungarian community in Slovakia and the broader issue of protecting autochthonous national minorities were not addressed as distinct and prominent topics during the debate. They recalled that amendments relating to minority protection, submitted in the context of the 2025 Human Rights Report, were ultimately not incorporated into the final text.
Zsuzsanna Borvendég (ESN) emphasized the rejection of the principle of collective guilt, the importance of equality before the law and legal certainty, as well as the question of cultural autonomy. She urged a resolution of the property disputes affecting the Hungarian community.
Predictably, Ľuboš Blaha (NI), representing Slovakia, made it clear that any questioning of the Beneš Decrees is to be rejected. Katarína Roth Neveďalová (NI) dismissed as “nonsense” the allegation that land is being confiscated on an ethnic basis.
The plenary debate once again highlighted that the historical legacy connected to the principle of collective guilt, issues of property rights and legal certainty affecting national minorities, and certain elements of minority rights protection continue to be disputed. The resolution of issues concerning equality before the law for autochthonous national minorities, native language rights, cultural autonomy, and the protection of property requires attention at the European level.
