Nevertheless, it is possible to open the question whether the principle of loyal cooperation, as conceived in the EU Treaty, is not enforceable to some extent. Indeed, the Union and the member states respect each other and help each other in carrying out the tasks arising from the treaties. In addition, Member States shall assist the Union in fulfilling its tasks and shall not take any measure that could jeopardize the achievement of the Union’s objectives.
In the case of the loan for Ukraine, this issue is highlighted by the fact that the member states agreed to provide it at the December 2025 summit. The agreement is also valid for Hungary and the Slovak Republic, but with a reservation about non-participation in guaranteeing it.
The leading representative of Hungary denied consent to this agreement by vetoing the loan at the next meeting of the European Council. Just to underline, this is a completely unique phenomenon in the history of the Union. The agreements of the highest representatives of the member states were always fulfilled without reservation, because they were respected as legally binding expressions of will, although they had a political basis.
Orbán’s veto has no effect
I therefore believe that, according to the principles that govern the interpretation and use of the founding treaties, the additional dissenting expression of the will of the Hungarian Prime Minister has no effect. For that, he would need a positive decision by 26 member states to withdraw his consent to the agreement in December 2025.
There is no such decision. What has been written also applies to Slovakia’s share in rejecting the conclusions of the March summit of the European Council. With such an interpretation method, it is requested to take into account the fact that the change in the Hungarian position, supported by Slovakia, contradicts the content of the principle of loyal cooperation.
Hungary violated it by not respecting the will of 25 member states as well as by threatening the Union’s goal of contributing to the achievement of peace in Ukraine by providing a loan. Aid to the Ukrainian people and the state with which its membership is assumed.
Therefore, the decision of the European Council to provide a loan to Ukraine, which should only be the implementation of the agreement of 27 member states from December 2025, is valid and effective even without Hungary’s nod and despite Slovakia’s lingering resistance to the conclusions of the summit. Both states did so without the December agreement conditioning its implementation on any additional requirements of these countries.
A rare and unprecedented Hungarian step
The proposed interpretation can be opposed. The suggested interpretation is somewhat unique, without an example from the past. We know. However, the legally unfounded revocation of the politically and constitutionally effective participation of the Hungarian Prime Minister in the December 2025 agreement is equally rare, sly and unprecedented.
It is therefore appropriate to respond to Hungary’s non-standard approach with an exceptional, unusual understanding of the principle of unanimous decision-making. The validity and enforceability of the vote at the March European Council will be derived from the original agreement of all member states concluded at the December European Council meeting.
The agreement, which has not changed, is not revocable and does not contain the possibility of such a condition, as announced by the Hungarian Prime Minister and joined by our Prime Minister, i.e. the supply of Russian oil through the Druzhba pipeline.
Fico should turn to parliament
Statements about taking over the baton from Viktor Orbán are apparently just Robert Fico’s strongman rhetoric. It is not at all certain what he is aiming for, perhaps some support for the incumbent Hungarian Prime Minister in the upcoming elections, or for a momentary appeal to the voter base of our strongest governing party.
However, it will not hurt to write a few sentences about how such a “sporting gesture” of the Slovak Republic would turn out. First about what should precede it. From the concept of the Constitutional Act no. 397/2004 Coll. cooperation between the National Council of the Slovak Republic and the Government of the Slovak Republic in matters of the European Union implies the government’s subordination to the legislature.
The National Council can approve the positions of the Slovak Republic on drafts of legally binding acts and other acts of the European Union, which are decided at the level of representatives of the governments of the member states of the European Union.
More importantly, the National Council can still approve the positions of the Slovak Republic on other matters of the European Union. The prerequisite is a request from the government or at least a fifth of the members of the National Council. Other EU issues certainly include the opinion on the granting of a 90 billion loan by the European Union to another state.
Gambling with Slovakia’s future in the EU
If the prime minister declares in advance that after the eventual fall of the current Hungarian cabinet, he will adopt Viktor Orbán’s views and will block a loan for Ukraine, then the time has probably come to call for action by the National Council on the fact that Slovakia must not continue the sentence of the Hungarian head of government.
Drafting such a resolution would be a big challenge for the parliament. There are several reasons. Giving consent to the continuation of Hungary’s sentence regarding a loan for our Ukrainian neighbor would legitimize the position of a member state whose population is 1.2 percent of the population of the entire Union against 26 member countries (98.8 percent of the population of the Union).
It would mean supporting the prime minister despite the fact that in December 2025 he participated in the agreement on crediting the defense of the Ukrainian state. Moreover, without the other member states agreeing to change his original consent and without the agreement admitting non-fulfillment of the obligation from its content.
Applying a veto additionally just because a representative of the executive of another state acted in this way would mean denying the constitutional principle of loyal cooperation towards the 26 member states and the EU as such in its elementary perception and application.
Even such a constitutional failure cannot be ruled out on the ground of our legislature. A resolution that would approve the idea of ”taking over the baton” from Viktor Orbán would undoubtedly spin a spiral of procedures and decisions of the European Union and other member countries towards our republic.
We will remain as a “pole in the fence”
The following lines also apply in the event that Robert Fico intends to take over the baton in Hungary without any approval from the government and the National Council. Basically, as he has been doing until now.
In the founding treaties, there is no possibility to exclude a member state from the Union.
Under relatively strict conditions, i.e. in case of serious or persistent violation of the EU values listed in Article 2 of the EU Treaty, in particular the principles of the rule of law or democracy, there is a suspension of certain rights arising from the application of treaties for the relevant member state, including the voting right of the representative of the government of this member state at Council meetings.
The suspension of the exercise of fundamental rights would obviously not be opposed by any member state. The draconian measure could possibly be preceded by other decisions and measures responding to serious non-respect of the principle of loyal cooperation, the rule of law and violations of other obligations arising from primary EU law. I don’t think they need to be reminded. Unfortunately, there are quite a few of them.
In the final accounting, Slovakia would remain alone in the legal community of sovereign states of the Union as a “leg in the fence”. Without participation in the most significant benefits of membership, real participation in further development and without any say in decision-making processes. Actual exclusion. A terrifying but realistic idea.
