In one of the most closely watched criminal cases in Slovakia in recent years, the Specialized Criminal Court in Banská Bystrica (Besztercebánya) acquitted—at first instance—seven individuals prosecuted for their role in creating the Monument of Belonging in Dunajská Streda (Dunaszerdahely). The verdict was delivered on May 21, 2026. The prosecution immediately filed an appeal.

The monument, privately funded and commissioned by two local civic organizations, was unveiled on November 12, 2020, in the predominantly Hungarian-inhabited town following proper permitting and unanimous approval by the city council. Despite this, a complaint was filed by Ľudovít Gunčaga, head of the local branch of the ultra-nationalist Matica slovenská, and historian Patrik Dubovský. The complaint targeted seven local residents: Ferenc Zirig, László Csörgei, Zoltán Zalaba, Sándor Patassy, Olivér Ibolya, Attila Hencze, and András Kiss.

In early 2025, prosecutors charged the individuals with creating and promoting extremist ideology, controversially designating the monument itself as an object of extremism. The case proceeded to trial following an investigation concluded in December 2024, with hearings held in February and March 2026.

The court unequivocally rejected these claims. It found that the monument contains no extremist symbols, emblems, or messages, and that no criminal offense had been committed. In delivering the verdict, Judge Roman Puchovskýunderscored that no material or ideological equivalence could be established between the Monument of Belonging and monuments erected during the 1938–1939 Horthy era, contrary to the complainants’ assertions.

The ruling also emphasized a broader principle: criminal law must remain a measure of last resort. In cases rooted in social or communal tensions, dialogue and good-faith efforts toward resolution should take precedence. Notably, as defense attorney Ferenc Mazács pointed out, the complainants made no attempt to resolve the matter outside of criminal proceedings.

• The court further addressed the central concept of “belonging,” rejecting the notion that it carries inherently extremist connotations. Instead, it affirmed that the term may legitimately express both the unity of the Hungarian community and the shared coexistence of diverse national, religious, and cultural groups in Dunajská Streda.
• While expert testimony explored symbolic and historical nuances—including distinctions between flags and tricolors and interpretations of symbolic display—these technical considerations ultimately reinforced the absence of any extremist content or intent.
• At the heart of the case was the allegation that the monument evoked revisionist or irredentist symbolism linked to the First Vienna Award of 1938. The court firmly dismissed this claim as unfounded.

The prosecution should now withdraw its appeal and issue a public apology to the seven defendants. For nearly six years, they were subjected to legal uncertainty, reputational harm, and undue stress as a result of a case that has now been clearly discredited. Continuing the proceedings would only compound this injustice and further erode public trust.

This case also serves as a cautionary example of prosecutorial overreach. The misuse of criminal law in a politically and ethnically sensitive context has strained interethnic relations in Dunajská Streda and diverted public resources away from legitimate priorities. Accountability and restraint are now essential to restoring confidence in the rule of law.

Source: ma7.sk, Csemadok.sk

Please follow and like us: