1. Legislation and Anticorruption
in EU Accession and
Membership:
What can be learned from Slovakia’s
experience?
Erik Láštic
Comenius University, Bratislava

2. Montenegro 2011 Progress Report
• capacity needs to upgraded
• the role to be further developed
• cooperation further enhanced, weak
coordination in EU affairs
• capacity of ministries to produce high-quality
legislation and Impact assessment remains
limited

3. Slovakia 2012: State of
membership report (fictional)
• capacity needs to upgraded
• the role to be further developed
• cooperation further enhanced
• weak coordination in EU affairs
• capacity of ministries to produce high-quality
legislation and Impact assessment remains
limited

4. Structure
• Slovakia and EU- short political history
• Legislation
• Anticorruption

5. Slovakia and EU
Cabinets
- V. Mečiar (1994- 98)
- M. Dzurinda I. (1998-2002)
- M. Dzurinda II. (2002-2006)
- R. Fico (2006-2010)

6. Mečiar [1994- 1998]
• inability to fulfill Copenhagen political criteria
•criticized by EU of being too powerful and
disrespectful: bully type
•making friends with unpopular guys
•lost election in 1998

7. M. Dzurinda I. (1998-2002)
• catching-up period, Slovakia as obedient dog
•Pledged loyalty to the EU and NATO family
•Respected the rights of the opposition and rule of law
•Was making friends with right guys
•Listened very carefully

8. M. Dzurinda II. (2002-2006)
• grateful new member state BUT
•Old v. New Europe- Iraq War
•“Neoliberal” economic turn: flat
rate tax, flexible labor code, mantra
of FDI (PSA Peugot-Citroen, KIA-
Hyundai)
•Cultural&Ethical Issues and EU
Constitution making
•Non-binding accession
arrangements revisited

9. R. Fico (2006-2010)
• in opposition very critical
• of accession conditions
•of neoliberal turn
•of Slovakia’s position in Iraq
•of Euro zone entry
2002 Elections bilboard: To the
European Union! But not with
bare asses...

10. R. Fico (2006-2010)
• as the PM- From Bored to Death to Pragmatist
•12/2006, first EU summit, bored and
“uncleless”
•two unwanted gifts from Dzurinda: Schengen
and Euro zone application
•scared of Euro, but listened to Central Bank
and big businesses
•able to use EU “social standards” as reasoning
for some changes
•EU matters not a priority, but EU money yes

11. Influence of history
• accession as catching up (political and
technical)
• core administrative structures (dozens of
people, not many more)
• one way street (from EU to Slovakia)

12. Legislation, Technical solution(s)
• Frequent use of fast track legislative
procedure in 1998-2002
• 2001 Amendment of the Constitution:
Executive’s Approximation decrees to
accelerate the transposition of the acquis
communautaire

13. Executive’s Approximation Decrees
(2001)
• Decrees in order to execute the European Agreement on
Association and to execute international treaties stipulated in
Article 7 section 2 of the Constitution.
• “TO REDUCE” workload of the Parliament
• Duties on individuals and legal entities can be imposed by this
type of decree
• Law and following amendments increased number of policy
areas
• From temporary measure to permanent one (prolonged
indefinitely in 2004)

14. EU
Total n.
Vetoed decrees
Elector of Cabinet MP Fast track Reject
by ,
al bills propos propos procedure ed
preside approv
Term approv ed ed *** drafts
nt ed by
ed
cabinet
I. 1994
313 258 55 46 142 32 -
- 1998
II.
1998 - 532 406 126 104 252 72 -
2002
III.
2002 - 550 458 92 36 216 60 437
2006

15. Period No. of issued Period No. of issued
approximation approximation
decress decress
I. half 2002 23 II. half 2006 28
II. half 2002 11 I. half 2007 75
I. half 2003 87 II. half 2007 30
II. half 2003 90 I. half 2008 23
I. half 2004 40 II. half 2008 34
II. half 2004 15 I. half 2009 33
I. half 2005 21 II. half 2009 29
II. half 2005 28 I. half 2010 26
I. half 2006 127 II. half 2010 22
Celkom: 742

17. Period Total No. of Planned Unplanned
decrees issued
I.period 2002 23 5 18
II.period 2002 11 10 1
I.period 2003 87 66 21
II.period 2003 90 42 48
I.period 2004 40 3 37
II.period 2004 15 0 15
I.period 2005 21 8 13
II.period 2005 28 28 0
I.period 2006 127 13 114
II.period 2006 28 28 0
I.period 2007 75 21 54
II.period 2007 30 17 13
I.period 2008 23 18 5
II.period 2008 34 12 22
I.period 2009 33 31 2
II.period 2009 29 7 22
I.period 2010 26 12 14
II.period 2010 22 7 15
Total: 742 328 414

18. Implementation after 2004
• formally so far so good
– legacy of accession
– EU decrees as an powerful instrument
– no influence of interest groups?
– very legalistic
• implementation in real life (dead letters?)

19. The Parliament strikes back
• The constitutional law on cooperation between the
cabinet and the legislature in EU matters [2004]
– the Cabinet is obliged to have its position in EU-related
matters approved by the Parliament, or its EU committee
(PCEU)
– pre-selection of positions
– If PCEU decides to discuss it, it can change the Cabinet’s
position and oblige the Cabinet to follow its opinion
– informal rules prevail

20. VEZ- Výbor NR SR pre európske záležitosti; OEZ- Odbor pre európske záležitosti NR SR; RKS- Rezortná koordinačná skupina; KEÚ 1 a 2- Komisia pre záležitosti EÚ 1 a 2; ÚOŠŠ-
Ústredný orgán štátnej správy; EK- Európska komisia; COREPER I, II- Výbor stálych predstaviteľov; SCA- Špeciálny výbor pre poľnohospodárstvo; PS- Pracovná skupina
Rady EÚ

21. Anti-corruption (accession/
membership)
• Mostly outside of acquis communitaire, but
essential part of conditionality
• Not only about measures, but also credibility
• Role of domestic actors (NGO, courts)
• Freedom of information act in Slovakia as best
anti-corruption instrument

22. Free Access to Information
• Constitutional Article on freedom of expression
included right to information (1992)
• Freedom of Information Act (2000) as a product of
– After 1998 election
– Coalition of willing- politicians and NGOs
– Broader policy context - first policy initiative by
NGOs

23. Basic features of law
• maximum disclosure
• limited scope of exceptions
• obligation to inform
• processes to facilitate access- judicial
review
• limited costs
• review opportunities

24. Implementation Phase
• NGOs’ role
– explaining and educating (administration and
public)
– monitoring- building of a precedent law
• Courts’ Role
– role of DA, AG
– confirming law authors intentions (scope,
obligations)
– obligation to explain withholding of information
(secrecy- state, business)

25. Impact
• it increases transparency- what about
accountability?
• as a tool for policy reviews and alternative
proposal
• is essential to the right to participate in the
administration of public affairs- a possibility
for an informed decision by citizens

26. Challenges: past and ahead
• Completion of membership (Schengen, free
movement)
• Sustainability of changes after accession
• Split between political and administrative EU
matters, coordination
• Limited capacity to upload preferences to EU
• High turnout in personnel (? of capacity)
• EU funds and corruption
• Size and time