Anti‑Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Slovak Republic
Table of contents
In the Slovak Republic, the State Security and Corruption Prevention Section of the Government Office is responsible for implementing the anti-corruption and integrity measures across the public sector. The committee on incompatibility of functions of the National Council of the Slovak Republic monitors compliance with conflict-of-interest regulations. The State Commission for Elections and Control of Political Party Financing has responsibility over political finance issues. Competences over open data policy are shared between the Ministry of Investment, Regional Development and Informatisation and the Ministry of Justice. In the absence of a legal framework on lobbying, there is no institution responsible for monitoring lobbying activities.
The National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2026-2029 was adopted under Resolution of the Government of the Slovak Republic No. 31/2026 of 21 January 2026 on the draft National Anti-Corruption Strategy of the Slovak Republic for 2026-2029. Key elements of the regulatory framework include Constitutional Act No. 357/2004 Coll. on the Protection of the Public Interest, which establishes conflict of interest standards for top-tier officials, Act on the Civil Service No. 55/2017 Coll. which establishes ethical principles for civil servants, and Act No. 54/2019 Coll. on the Protection of Whistleblowers, which sets out corruption reporting protections. Act No. 300/2005 Coll Criminal Code defines corruption-related crimes.
Judicial integrity in the Slovak Republic is regulated by the Constitution and the Act on Judges and Lay Judges. The Judicial Council plays a central role in appointments, promotions and disciplinary matters. Prosecutorial integrity is governed by the Constitution and the Act on Prosecutors and Prosecutor Trainees. The disciplinary system for civil servants is regulated by the Civil Service Act. Breaches of service discipline are examined by the Secretary General with the support of an advisory committee.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
Data on where the Slovak Republic’s integrity system is strongest and could be most improved can be found at the link below:
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
The Slovak Republic fulfils 27% of criteria on the strength of strategic framework, and 7% on practice compared to the OECD average of 38% and 32%, respectively.
The Slovak Anti-Corruption Policy for 2019–2023 expired in 2023. In November 2023, the National Council approved the Programme Statement of the Government of the Slovak Republic 2023–2027. The Programme Statement – which sets out the government’s vision, priorities and goals for its four-year term, included commitments to frame anti-corruption and public integrity strategic objectives. In particular, the Programme Statement includes a dedicated section on anti-corruption prevention policy, integrity in the public sector and transparency, with the overarching objective to protect integrity and promote a culture of rejection of corruption. Key commitments included regulating contacts between public officials and lobbyists, introducing uniform asset-declaration rules, adopting ethics rules for senior officials, strengthening cooperation with local governments, building institutional capacities and supporting integrity-focused communication.
The new National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2026-2029 was adopted under Resolution of the Government of the Slovak Republic No. 31/2026 of 21 January 2026 on the draft National Anti-Corruption Strategy of the Slovak Republic for 2026-2029. The Strategy builds on the commitments outlined in the Programme Statement and is based on four pillars: building and strengthening capacities, education and communication, managing corruption risks, and data collection and monitoring. It is accompanied by an action plan. The new Strategy is not reflected in the data, as it will be assessed by the OECD in 2026.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
The Slovak Republic fulfils 20% of criteria on lobbying regulations, and 0% on practice compared to the OECD average of 43% and 38%, respectively.
The Slovak Republic does not have a law defining lobbying activities or specifying who qualifies as a lobbyist; however a draft law on lobbying is currently in progress following public consultation. As such, there are no lobbying-specific transparency rules or sanctions for breaches of lobbying standards.
A one year cooling-off periods for certain high level public officials leaving public office are established in the Constitutional Act No. 357/2004 Coll on the Protection of the Public Interest. Currently, there are no cooling off periods in place for lobbyists.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
The Slovak Republic fulfils 78% of criteria on conflict-of-interest regulations, and 0% on practice compared to the OECD average of 80% and 45%, respectively.
the Constitutional Act No. 357/2004 Coll on the Protection of the Public Interest establishes incompatibilities between public office and certain public or private activities. Sanctions for breaches include fines calculated as multiples of the monthly salary, obligations to terminate incompatible activities, and, in certain cases, loss of office.
The Act on the Protection of the Public Interest requires members of Government, members of Parliament, members of the highest judicial bodies, and top-tier executive officials to submit interest declarations upon entry into office and annually. Declarations are reviewed by designated bodies, which may initiate proceedings in cases of incomplete or false information. While detailed procedures for examining interest declarations are specified in the law, the law does not detail if the verification procedure includes checks on the consistency and coherence of declared information and cross-referencing with other available data sources (e.g. public registers, tax databases, etc.),and verification is not based on a systematic risk-based approach. The Committee for Incompatibility of Functions of the National Council is responsible for collecting data on interest declarations however data on submission rates of interest declarations was not available, nor was data on the share of declarations verified during the latest two full calendar years.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
The Slovak Republic fulfils 90% of criteria on political finance regulations, and 0% on practice compared to the OECD average of 76% and 58%, respectively.
Sanctions for breaches of political finance and election campaign rules are established in Act No. 181/2014 Coll. and vary according to the severity and type of violation. Anonymous donations are prohibited. Political parties may not accept contributions from foreign individuals or entities, the state, municipalities, publicly owned enterprises, or entities with public ownership. Campaign spending ceilings apply. Final campaign reports must be submitted within 30 days of elections and are published by the Ministry of Interior for five years.
Oversight of political party and campaign financing is mandated to the State Commission for Elections and Control of Funding of Political Parties. However, the Commission does not have certified auditors on its payroll. The Commission publishes its resolutions online, including decisions on violations and sanctions. However, information is available case by case and not as aggregated data, and there is no published breakdown of the number of cases, investigations conducted, or types of sanctions issued. Financial reports are published online, though there is no single comprehensive platform containing complete financial reports for all political parties in a consolidated, user-friendly format. Annual financial reports are missing for several political parties.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
The Slovak Republic fulfils 78% of criteria on transparency of public information regulations, and 62% on practice compared to the OECD average of 72% and 62%, respectively.
Access to information is governed by Act No. 211/2000 Coll. Everyone has the right to access information held by these entities, and information may be provided in the requester's desired format. Applicants are not required to justify their requests. Limitations to disclosure are defined in law. Requests must be processed within 12 working days (15 for accessible formats), with only limited extensions permitted. Internal appeals are available, and judicial review may be sought before administrative courts.
The Ministry of Investment, Regional Development and Informatization (MIRRI) oversees informatisation and open data policy. Each obliged entity keeps its own records under the Act, and no single public body compiles nationwide statistics. Sanctions for breaches may be imposed through administrative or judicial proceedings. A central government monitoring function for open data policy exists. Monitoring of datasets published on the national open data portal is carried out under government mandates, with the National Agency for Network and Electronic Services administering the portal under the MIRRI. The Slovak Republic Government proactively publishes varies datasets. These include consolidated versions of all primary laws, land registries, company registries, public tenders announced by the central government as well as their results aggregated on one website, through the Central Register of Contracts. Session agendas and adopted resolutions are also published online however ministers’ agendas are not systematically published in advance of meetings.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
The Slovak Republic fulfils 82% of criteria on judicial integrity regulations, and 80% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 45%, respectively
The Constitution guarantees judicial independence and sets objective grounds for dismissal, further detailed in the Act on Judges and Lay Judges. Judges are appointed without term limits until retirement and may be dismissed only by the President on proposal of the Judicial Council. Entry requires passing a specialised judicial exam and completing a public selection procedure. Promotions and transfers to higher courts follow defined procedures with written and oral components, and appointments are made by the President on the Judicial Council’s proposal. Half of the members of the Judicial Council are judges, with the law regulating their appointment and dismissal regulated by law; however, dismissal rules for non-judicial members are not specified.
The Judicial Code of Conduct applies to all judges and the Act on Judges and Lay Judges sets incompatibility rules. Judges must submit incompatibility statements upon entry and notify changes, as well as detailed property declarations. Members of the highest bodies of the judiciary are subject to stricter requirements under the Constitutional Act. From 2021–2024 all judges in the highest courts filed declarations.
The Whistleblower Protection Act safeguards individuals reporting judicial misconduct. The Supreme Administrative Court Office provides online guidance for reporting misconduct within the court and the Ministry of Justice provides information on reporting procedures for whistleblowers in lower courts and the Specialised Criminal Court. However, no equivalent information exists for the Supreme Court. Some courts lack mandatory confidentiality training for staff handling reports, though designated Ministry of Justice staff receive annual training from the Whistleblower Protection Office.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
The Slovak Republic fulfils 76% of criteria on prosecutorial integrity regulations, and 53% on practice compared to the OECD average of 66% and 52%, respectively
Entry into the prosecution service generally requires a competitive selection procedure under the Constitution and the Act on Prosecutors and Prosecutor Trainees, including written and oral examinations and psychological assessment. The Prosecutor General is a constitutional official appointed by the President upon proposal of the National Council. The Constitutional Law Committee of the National Council reviews the professional qualifications of proposed candidates in public sessions and holds public hearings of all candidates. As a safeguard, decisions taken in this process and all appointment procedures are subject to constitutional review. However, selected deputy prosecutors are appointed by respective superior prosecutors, without undergoing a formal competitive selection procedure.
Grounds for dismissal of prosecutors are established in law, and prosecutors are subject to incompatibility rules and conflict-of-interest obligations, reinforced by a Code of Ethics and recusal provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code. Disciplinary sanctions range from reprimands and salary reductions to dismissal, depending on the severity of the breach. The Prosecutor General is required to submit interest declarations under the Constitutional Act No.357/2004.
Whistleblowing mechanisms are regulated by the Act on the Protection of Whistleblowers of Anti-Social Activity and internal regulations of the Prosecutor General’s Office, which provide internal reporting channels and protection against retaliation. Information on whistleblowers’ rights, reporting procedures and contact details is publicly available on the website of the General Prosecutor’s Office. While prosecutors adhere to confidentiality obligations in their duties, there is no mandatory training on the confidentiality of whistleblower reports for staff handling reports in public prosecutors’ offices.
Note: 2025 data or latest year available.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators Database (data extracted on 7 March 2026)
The Slovak Republic fulfils 42% of criteria on disciplinary system for civil servants’ regulations, and 0% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 22%, respectively
The Civil Service Act regulates the disciplinary framework for civil servants. It distinguishes between minor and serious breaches of service discipline but does not specify which acts fall into each category. The Secretary General initiates and assesses either on their own or upon proposal by a senior employee. The Secretary General establishes an advisory committee of at least three members that reviews the evidence and issues a non-binding opinion to the Secretary General of the relevant public entity. The Civil Service Act does not contain specific provisions establishing a right to appeal a disciplinary warning before a judicial body.
No dedicated training exists on how to conduct disciplinary investigations under the Civil Service Act and there is no specialised module for staff handling such cases. Each central government body uses its own case management or registry system for handling disciplinary matters, based on its internal rules, as no unified case management system exists across central government bodies.
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Member countries of the OECD.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Kosovo: This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99 and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s declaration of independence.
The full book is available in English: OECD (2026), Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Harnessing the Integrity Advantage, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/16708b78-en.
© OECD 2026
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution – you must cite the work.
Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of the original work should be considered valid.
Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.
Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement.
You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.
Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one.