Article

On June 27, 2024, the National Council of the Slovak Republic passed Act No. 166/2024 Coll. on Certain Measures to Improve the Security Situation in the Slovak Republic (hereinafter also referred to as the “Act”), which has been dubbed the “lex atentát.” According to the submitter, the Government of the Slovak Republic, the reason for submitting the draft Act was to address the security situation in the Slovak Republic following the assassination attempt on the Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic, Robert Fico, on May 15, 2024, in Handlová. The content of the draft Act consisted of an initial set of measures targeting several areas, which we will present in this article, with an emphasis on the new legal provisions of the Act on the Right of Assembly.

The Act amended the following legal regulations in accordance with its purpose:

1. Act No. 84/1990 Coll. on the Right of Assembly
2. Act No. 372/1990 Coll. on Misdemeanors
3. Act No. 46/1993 Coll. on the Slovak Information Service
4. Act No. 120/1993 Coll. on the Salaries of Certain Constitutional Officials of the Slovak Republic
5. Act No. 171/1993 Coll. on the Police Force
6. Act No. 215/2004 Coll. on the Protection of Classified Information and on Amendments to Certain Acts

The first area of measures adopted by the Act is the expansion of protection for designated persons and designated facilities by broadening their scope, specifically within the Act itself as a legal regulation of higher legal force rather than in government resolutions. At the same time, in this context, lifetime protection was also established for the three highest constitutional officials (which applies to the children and family members of selected individuals, as well as so-called opposition leaders, i.e., the chairs of political parties and movements represented in the National Council of the Slovak Republic).

The second and most significant area concerns the regulation of the conditions for exercising the right of assembly and the scope and conditions under which the exercise of the right of assembly may be restricted, provided that such restrictions apply exclusively to cases falling within one of the areas specified in Article 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The third area of the Act’s amendments concerns changes to Act No. 372/1990 Coll. on Misdemeanors, consisting of stricter penalties for selected offenses against civil coexistence, as well as changes to the powers of Police Corps officers to improve the detection rate of such offenses committed via electronic communication services.

Another area involves expanding the scope of a state authority, explicitly including among the tasks of the civil intelligence service the collection, compilation, and evaluation of information concerning the protection of designated persons and the reporting of such information to the Police Force. The Act also regulates the imposition of penalties for illegal filming and photography, as well as aerial photography

Another area concerns the amendment to Act No. 120/1993 Coll. on the remuneration of certain constitutional officials of the Slovak Republic, where the Act grants the right to “appropriately furnished real estate” instead of the right to “appropriately furnished housing” to the President, the Speaker of the National Council, and the Prime Minister. At the same time, the right to a lifetime salary equal to the salary of a member of the National Council of the Slovak Republic has been newly granted not only to the President of the Slovak Republic, but also to the Speaker of Parliament and the Prime Minister as the second and third highest constitutional officials, in the amount and under the conditions specified by the Act.

Act on the Right of Assembly

Act No. 84/1990 Coll. on the Right of Assembly was amended by the Act as follows:

- a prohibition on disrupting the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly was explicitly introduced (this is intended to prevent acts that hinder others from freely exercising their political rights)

- the ban on assemblies near certain buildings is extended such that assemblies are prohibited within a 50-meter radius of

• the building in which the President of the Slovak Republic has his permanent seat,
• the building in which the National Council of the Slovak Republic or the Government of the Slovak Republic regularly meets,
• a building where the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic has its permanent seat, unless otherwise provided by a special regulation,
• a building other than those referred to in subparagraphs (a) through (c), where a constitutional body referred to in subparagraphs (a) through (c) holds meetings or otherwise exercises its powers,
• a building provided by the Ministry of the Interior of the Slovak Republic for the needs of the President of the Slovak Republic, the Speaker of the National Council of the Slovak Republic, and the Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic pursuant to a special regulation;

(According to the explanatory memorandum, these are grounds also envisaged by Article 11 (note) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. According to the proposer, the aim of this provision is to ensure conditions for the smooth and undisturbed operation of the aforementioned state bodies. Special legal provisions under Act No. 314/2018 Coll. apply to the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, where the distance is set at 100 meters. For the same reasons, restrictions on assembly have also been proposed in locations where a general court regularly conducts its activities. The aim is to ensure the proper functioning and operation of these bodies and thus limit pressure on the independence of the judiciary. In the case of buildings, the aim is to ensure the protection of the right to privacy and the undisturbed use of these buildings by constitutional officials as well as by citizens of the Slovak Republic.

- established a rule for determining locations where the holding of an assembly is not subject to a notification requirement - these were primarily designated outside residential areas and in locations where there is a general expectation of a concentration of a larger number of people, and the transportation capacity of the area, as well as expectations regarding interference with the privacy and other rights of persons residing there, should be adapted accordingly; specifically, these locations are primarily public spaces such as squares, parks, marketplaces, or other similar places

- an obligation has been introduced for the Police Force to inform the municipality in writing of the specific reasons for banning an assembly, given that the Police Force is the primary source of information regarding reasons that could potentially lead to a ban on an assembly, particularly with regard to a new ground for prohibition related to multiple competing assemblies. In this regard, there has been no change in the municipality’s authority to assess the existence of grounds for prohibiting an assembly; however, a penalty has been added for cases where, based on information from the Police Force, the municipality possesses information regarding grounds for prohibiting an assembly, fails to prohibit it, and the reported risks materialize

- new grounds for prohibiting assemblies have been established, namely in cases where:

• the assembly is to take place near the residence of a person whose employment, profession, or function is directly related to the purpose of the assembly, and the organizer has not agreed to change the venue of the assembly,
• there is a reasonable concern that a clash will occur with participants of a previously notified assembly, as a result of which it will not be possible to ensure the orderly and peaceful conduct of these assemblies even with the deployment of available forces and resources, the organizers have not reached an agreement on adjusting the time or venue of the assemblies, and public order cannot be ensured by any less disruptive measures; if it is impossible to determine which notice was received first, the decision shall be made by drawing lots in the presence of representatives of the organizers,
• the assembly is to take place at a location situated in an area designated primarily for residential use and is not a square, park, marketplace, or other similar location; based on the reported facts or other information, there is reasonable concern that holding the assembly will result in an infringement of the fundamental right to privacy of a large number of people or an infringement of the peaceful enjoyment of their homes to an extent exceeding that normally associated with a peaceful assembly; and the protection of their rights cannot be ensured by any less disruptive measures
• the assembly is to take place within 50 meters of a building where a general court has its seat or exercises its jurisdiction, if the purpose of the assembly is directly related to the decision-making activities of the general court.

- The possibility has been introduced for a municipality to ban a gathering if it is to take place in a location where the necessary restrictions associated with holding the gathering—in particular, restrictions on the right to privacy, restrictions on the peaceful enjoyment of one’s home, restrictions on transportation, or restrictions on supply, would be in serious conflict with the interests of the population, provided that the assembly can be held elsewhere without undue difficulty and without thereby thwarting the stated purpose of the assembly

- new elements of offenses (and some were supplemented) against the right of assembly were introduced (while the penalties for these offenses were also adjusted), whereby an offense against the right of assembly is committed by anyone who

• convenes or organizes an assembly without fulfilling the notification requirement, organizes an assembly that has been prohibited, or violates another obligation of the convener under this Act,
• disobeys the order of the convener or designated organizers of the assembly or prevents these persons from performing their duties,
• unlawfully hinders or prevents participants from accessing the assembly,
• unlawfully prevents another person from exercising their right of assembly,
• unlawfully intrudes into the assembly,
• by inappropriate behavior prevents participants from fulfilling the purpose of the assembly,
• prevents participants from dispersing peacefully,
• repeatedly or intentionally disobeys the order of the convener or designated organizers of the assembly, or repeatedly or intentionally prevents these persons from fulfilling their duties,
• as a participant in the assembly, carries a firearm, explosive, or other objects capable of causing bodily harm, and if it can be inferred from the circumstances or their conduct that these are intended for use in violence or as a threat of violence,
• unlawfully and intentionally prevents another person from exercising their right to assemble,
• unlawfully and intentionally prevents participants from accessing the assembly or from dispersing peacefully,
• through grossly inappropriate behavior prevents participants from fulfilling the purpose of the assembly,
• intentionally and actively disrupts the course of the assembly so that it ceases to be orderly and peaceful, or incites such conduct,
• as a participant in the assembly, has their face covered in a manner preventing their identification, if a police officer is carrying out an official intervention against them and the police officer has requested that they uncover their face

Under the new legislation, if the nature of the offense permits, the offense may also be committed via an electronic communication service—this is not a substantive legal provision, but rather an emphasis that even the online space is not a lawless space where the legal norms of the Slovak Republic do not apply to those subject to the law.

The law takes effect on July 15, 2024, and its text, as well as the texts of the amended legal regulations, have been the target of criticism from many organizations, as well as certain politicians and institutions (the Public Defender of Rights, lawyers, the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic, the Slovak Bar Association, Amnesty International Slovakia, and others). They warn of the potential misuse of this new legislation to suppress freedom of expression and political opposition. According to them, the provisions in the Act are formulated too vaguely, which could lead to arbitrary decisions by the state. This could not only threaten democratic assemblies but also undermine citizens’ trust in democratic processes. They also highlight the potential risks in the Act, as it could be used to suppress protests that are inconvenient for those in power or to potentially restrict freedom of expression. At the same time, they highlight the implications of this new legislation for many other legal provisions (e.g., the Criminal Code).

ARTICLE 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, cit.:

“Freedom of assembly and association

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form or join trade unions for the protection of their interests.
2. The exercise of these rights may be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, the police, and public administration officials.”