As detailed in the report by the Hungarian Human Rights Foundation (HHRF) on December 16, 2025, recent developments concerning the Beneš Decrees raise grave concerns about the rule of law and the protection of minority rights in Slovakia.

Legal Background: A New Criminal Offense and Fundamental Rights Concerns

In recent weeks, Slovakia has adopted a criminal law amendment that seriously undermines the principles of rule of law, minority protection, and freedom of expression. The amended Criminal Code — specifically Section 417 — makes it punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment to publicly question the post–World War II legal settlement, including the Beneš Decrees. The amendment entered into force on December 27, 2025.

The provision’s vague and overly broad wording creates significant legal uncertainty, effectively deterring citizens from engaging in legitimate public debate.

Dr. Imre Juhász, Hungary’s Commissioner for Fundamental Rights (Ombudsman),has strongly criticized the amendment, stating that it violates freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. According to him, the law grants criminal-law protection to legal instruments grounded in collective punishment — measures that served as the basis for depriving millions of their rights. The Hungarian Ombudsman’s position carries particular weight given that the regulation may also affect Hungarian citizens.

Petition and Civil Disobedience

In response, three ethnic Hungarian citizens of Slovakia — János Fiala-Butora, an international lawyer; Örs Orosz, a politician and representative of the Hungarian Alliance party; and Attila Stubendek, an activist and engineer — initiated a deliberate act of civil disobedience.

On January 3, 2026, they launched a petition addressed to Slovak citizens, which gathered more than seven thousand signatures within days. The initiative aims to demonstrate, through legal and civic means, that the new criminal provision is unconstitutional and unenforceable.

That same day, the three initiators reported themselves to the police in Dunajská Streda/ Dunaszerdahely, fully aware of the potential for criminal prosecution. Their goal was not to become martyrs but to prove that the law constitutes a disproportionate restriction of fundamental rights — above all, freedom of expression.

Criminal proceedings have indeed begun. Meanwhile, prosecutors, lawyers, and constitutional experts have publicly questioned the amendment’s legality, leaving the Slovak state in a quandary:

• If it enforces the law, it violates fundamental rights.
• If it refrains from enforcement, it admits the law is unenforceable.

International Warning and the European Dimension

On January 5, former Speaker of the Hungarian Assembly Dr. Katalin Szili addressed an open letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, expressing concern about the criminalization of opinions regarding the Beneš Decrees. She argued that open debate on matters of historical and legal significance is a cornerstone of democracy in Europe and cannot be curtailed through criminal law at either the national or EU level.

She emphasized:

“The assessment of the Beneš Decrees is unquestionably a matter of public interest. The state is not entitled to enforce a ‘historical truth’ through criminal law, as the criminalization of critical opinions is disproportionate and incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society.”

The issue is now attracting attention at the European level. The European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) — and subsequently the plenary session — is expected to include the Slovak legislation on its agenda.

Why Does This Case Have Broader Significance?

The petition is written in Slovak and seeks to produce direct legal effect within Slovakia. Nevertheless, the case’s implications extend far beyond national borders.

A precedent-setting situation has emerged in an EU member state: the use of criminal law to silence public discussion about historical responsibility, collective guilt, and minority rights violations. This matter has tangible, ongoing consequences — Hungarian and German minorities in Slovakia continue to face property confiscations based on the Beneš Decrees.

What Comes Next?

The civil disobedience case remains in its early stages, while its constitutional and European dimensions grow increasingly salient. Key questions for the coming period include:

• Will constitutional review be effectively exercised?
• How will European institutions respond to such a threat to fundamental rights?

HHRF will continue to monitor developments closely. The focus will not be on promoting the petition itself, but on documenting the evolution of the proceedings — their milestones, rule-of-law implications, and the forms of civic protest that accompany them.

On January 23, 2026, a conference was held in Dunajská Streda, followed by a demonstration scheduled for January 30. These events underscore that this debate has grown beyond the legal realm to become a broader social and European issue.