Outrageous: Slovakia criminalises questioning of Beneš decrees, i.e. WWII-era collective punishment of Hungarians

Slovak President Peter Pellegrini has signed a highly controversial amendment to the country’s Criminal Code that makes it a criminal offence to publicly question the post–Second World War Beneš decrees, a move that has sparked fierce criticism from Hungarian minority groups, opposition parties and political figures in both Slovakia and Hungary.

The amendment, approved by the Slovak parliament earlier this month and signed into law on Tuesday, was originally intended to tighten penalties for minor theft. However, during parliamentary committee debates, the bill was significantly expanded to include several new provisions. According to Telex, these include criminalising alleged foreign interference in election campaigns, restricting the use of testimony from cooperating suspects—often referred to as “repentant witnesses”—and introducing penalties for publicly denying or questioning the legal framework established by post-war settlement documents, widely understood to refer to the Beneš decrees.

President Pellegrini confirmed that he chose not to veto or return the legislation for reconsideration, despite earlier indications that he might do so. “I decided not to send the amendment back to parliament for further debate and not to exercise my veto, but to sign it in the form approved by the legislature,” he said, adding that responsibility for the law lies with the government and the parliamentary majority that passed it.

Focus on the Beneš decrees

The most contentious element of the amendment is the provision that makes questioning the Beneš decrees a punishable offence. The decrees, issued in 1945 by then-Czechoslovak president Edvard Beneš, laid the legal foundation for the confiscation of property and the collective punishment of ethnic Germans and Hungarians following the Second World War. While Slovak authorities often argue that the decrees are no longer in force, they continue to be cited in certain property confiscation cases, particularly involving agricultural land and forests.

Under the new rules, publicly denying or challenging the legitimacy of the post-war settlement could result in criminal prosecution, with reports suggesting penalties of up to six months in prison.

Critics argue that the provision effectively stifles historical debate and disproportionately affects the Hungarian minority in Slovakia, many of whom continue to face unresolved property disputes linked to the decrees.

• Poland’s foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski slams PM Orbán and PM Fico again for Russia ties

Hungarian minority reacts

The Hungarian minority party in Slovakia, the Hungarian Alliance (Magyar Szövetség), has been one of the most vocal opponents of the amendment. The party has repeatedly condemned the law and recently organised a protest march under the slogan “March of Innocence” to highlight what it sees as ongoing injustice and discrimination.

Following President Pellegrini’s decision to sign the law, his adviser on minority affairs, Krisztián Forró, resigned from his post. Forró, a former leader of the Hungarian Alliance, had previously stated that he would step down if the amendment became law. Explaining his decision, he said that public service is only acceptable to him if it remains consistent with his principles, including legal certainty, mutual respect and the dignity of the community he represents.

President Pellegrini has defended the amendment, arguing that the issue was reignited by an opposition party and has contributed to rising tensions between Slovaks and Hungarians. He insisted that the law does not affect the right of individuals to defend their property in court and stressed that legal remedies remain available in confiscation cases. At the same time, he said that attempts to question historical events in a way that fuels social tensions should be rejected.

Political backlash at home and abroad

The amendment has also drawn criticism from Slovakia’s liberal and progressive opposition parties, though largely for other reasons. Parties such as Freedom and Solidarity (SaS) and Progressive Slovakia have announced plans to challenge the law at the Constitutional Court, focusing primarily on changes affecting cooperating witnesses rather than the Beneš decrees provision.

In Hungary, the issue has prompted political reactions across the spectrum. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán previously said that “clarifying talks” were underway with the Slovak government to better understand the implications of the law, adding that further steps would depend on the outcome of those discussions.

Hungarian opposition figure Péter Magyar, leader of the Tisza Party, accused the Hungarian government of abandoning ethnic Hungarians abroad. In a social media post, he claimed that while Orbán presents himself as a patriot, he has failed to protect Hungarian communities in Slovakia, following what Magyar described as a similar failure regarding Hungarians in Transylvania.

Within Hungary’s governing parties, one of the strongest reactions came from Zsolt Németh, chairman of the Hungarian parliament’s foreign affairs committee. He described Slovakia’s approach as unacceptable and expressed solidarity with the Hungarian Alliance, arguing that confiscations based on the Beneš decrees amount to ethnic discrimination incompatible with 21st-century European values.

• Will the Orbán-Fico alliance crumble over Slovakia’s fresh assault on Hungarian rights?

A sensitive legacy

The Beneš decrees remain one of the most sensitive historical issues in Central Europe, particularly in relations between Slovakia and Hungary. President Pellegrini’s decision to sign the amendment has ensured that the debate is far from over, with legal challenges, diplomatic discussions and minority protests all expected to continue in the coming months.