A recent report by Czech Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Tomáš Zdechovský has brought to light over 300 suspected cases of misuse of European Union (EU) funds in Slovakia. This alarming revelation follows a fact-finding mission by the European Parliament’s Budgetary Control Committee, which sought to scrutinize the management and allocation of EU subsidies within Slovakia. The findings have intensified scrutiny on Slovakia’s handling of EU funds, sparked political controversy, and raised questions about governance and transparency in the country.
Background: EU Fund Oversight Mission to Slovakia
In May 2025, a delegation from the European Parliament’s Budgetary Control Committee, led by Czech MEP Tomáš Zdechovský, visited Slovakia to investigate allegations of widespread misuse of EU funds. The delegation’s visit was prompted by numerous reports and complaints alleging irregularities and potential corruption involving EU subsidies, particularly in the agricultural sector.
During the mission, which lasted several days, the delegation met with a broad range of stakeholders including government officials, Members of the Slovak National Council, representatives of the Supreme Audit Office, investigative journalists, and civil society organizations. The goal was to assess Slovakia’s safeguards for protecting EU taxpayers’ money and to determine whether funds were being spent for their intended purposes.
Zdechovský stated,
“We visited Slovakia because we have been receiving alarming reports of alleged misuse of EU funds and rule violations involving individuals connected to Slovakia’s governments.”
He added that despite frank discussions,
“our concerns have not been adequately dispersed.”
The delegation planned to communicate their findings to other MEPs and decide on further action to protect EU taxpayers.
Scope and Nature of Suspected Misuse
The Czech MEP’s report highlights over 300 suspected cases of EU fund misuse across most districts of Slovakia. The complaints detail how funds intended for rural development, infrastructure, tourism, and other public projects may have been diverted or misappropriated.
One particularly troubling area involves the Agricultural Payment Agency’s disbursement of approximately €60 million for over 100 projects. Opposition politicians and investigative journalists have alleged that some of these funds were used to finance private properties and “haciendas” linked to individuals connected with the ruling political party Smer.
Michal Wiezik, a Slovak MEP who accompanied the delegation, noted that
“some of the money may have been misused to finance private properties,”
raising serious concerns about the integrity of subsidy allocation. Progressive Slovakia leader Michal Šimečka echoed these concerns, accusing the ruling party of exploiting EU funds for personal gain.
Political Reactions and Controversy
The EU investigation and Zdechovský’s report have provoked a strong response from Slovak political figures, particularly those aligned with the ruling coalition. Interior Minister Matúš Šutaj Eštok of the Hlas party accused the opposition of orchestrating the EU mission as a political stunt designed to tarnish Slovakia’s international reputation and undermine investment in critical sectors such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
Eštok claimed,
“This is the result of slandering Slovakia abroad by opposition, led by Progressive Slovakia, with support from Igor Matovič and SaS MPs. Their aim is simple: the worse for Slovakia, the better for the opposition.”
He dismissed the mission as politically motivated rather than a genuine audit.
In contrast, SaS party chair Branislav Gröhling criticized Eštok’s stance, accusing him of attempting to cover up corruption. Gröhling said,
“I don’t understand what Eštok is so afraid of, given how aggressively he attacked the delegation.”
The political tension reflects deep divisions within Slovakia over governance and transparency issues. The controversy has also spilled into public discourse, with some media outlets and political figures engaging in disinformation campaigns to discredit the EU delegation and the findings.
Broader Context: EU Funds and Corruption in Slovakia
Slovakia has faced ongoing challenges with corruption and misuse of EU funds. Previous investigations by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) have uncovered large-scale fraud schemes involving millions of euros in subsidies. For example, in March 2025, EPPO charged six suspects linked to an organized crime group accused of rigging public procurement processes and inflating prices of machinery purchased with EU subsidies. The fraudulent scheme involved falsified invoices and bank transfers, with subsidies paid based on these inflated costs.
Such cases have heightened concerns about the effectiveness of Slovakia’s oversight mechanisms and the risk of EU funds being siphoned off for private enrichment rather than public benefit.
EU’s Stance and Next Steps
The European Parliament has made it clear that protecting EU taxpayers’ money is a priority. The Budgetary Control Committee’s mission to Slovakia is part of a broader effort to enhance transparency and accountability in the use of EU funds across member states.
Zdechovský stressed,
“The European Parliament will use all its means to protect EU taxpayers’ money so that they can be spent for the benefit of Slovakia and its citizens.”
He expressed hope that Slovakia could regain its position as a decisive player in Central Europe with a thriving economy supported by properly managed EU investments.
The committee’s findings will be presented to the wider Parliament, which will determine whether to initiate further investigations, impose sanctions, or recommend reforms to Slovakia’s fund management systems.
Challenges to Transparency and Governance
One of the key challenges highlighted by the mission is the blurred line between political influence and corruption. The involvement of individuals linked to political parties in alleged misuse of funds complicates efforts to enforce accountability. Moreover, the Slovak government’s recent legislation targeting nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which critics liken to Russia’s “foreign agent” law, has raised concerns about shrinking civic space and reduced oversight.
Simona Zacharová, responsible for civil society development in Slovakia, defended the law as part of a broader European trend toward transparency, stating,
“The steps we are taking in Slovakia to improve transparency are not isolated but reflect a broader European trend.”
However, civil society groups argue that such laws can stifle independent scrutiny, which is vital for combating corruption.
Impact on Slovakia’s EU Relations and Funding
The ongoing scrutiny and allegations of misuse have implications for Slovakia’s standing within the EU and its access to future funding. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently warned that the EU’s unified direction cannot be blocked by a minority of countries, including Slovakia and Hungary, which have been criticized for undermining rule of law standards.
Merz’s comments intensified debates about conditionality mechanisms linking EU funds to governance and rule of law compliance. The possibility of withholding or suspending funds as a response to corruption risks has become a contentious issue in Brussels and Bratislava alike.
A Call for Reform and Vigilance
The report by Czech MEP Tomáš Zdechovský and the Budgetary Control Committee’s mission have exposed serious concerns about the misuse of EU funds in Slovakia. With over 300 suspected cases identified, the findings underscore the urgent need for stronger oversight, transparency, and political will to tackle corruption.
Slovakia stands at a crossroads: it can either address these challenges decisively and restore confidence in its institutions or risk further reputational damage and potential financial consequences from the EU.
As Zdechovský noted,
“We want Slovakia to get back on track being a decisive player in central Europe with a thriving economy and prosperous population.”
Achieving this vision will require concerted efforts from Slovak authorities, civil society, and the European Union to ensure that EU funds serve their intended purpose—supporting sustainable development and improving the lives of citizens.
This ongoing investigation and political debate highlight the complexities of managing EU funds in member states and the critical importance of vigilance to safeguard European taxpayers’ investments.
