The Minister’s June 24, 2025, decision in our client’s landmark case still stands, and so does the change in the Ministry’s practice that followed it. The amendment that took effect on July 15, 2026, did not overturn it or change who qualifies. It changed what an application must include, and that change lands exactly where early-emigration and pre-1918 naturalization cases have always been thinnest on paper.
Whether the decision still stands is a question we hear often from families whose ancestors left before 1918. What follows is the order in which things happened, what the decision settled, what the amendment added, and where the two meet.
The sequence
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| November 24, 2023 | We complete our legal analysis of Czechoslovak citizenship after the dissolution of Austria-Hungary. |
| December 2023 and June 2024 | Two academic legal historians, one Czech and one Slovak, neither connected with this firm, review it. |
| June 2024 | Our client applies under what was then Section 7(2)(j) of the Citizenship Act. |
| March 6, 2025 | The Ministry denies the application. The denial is delivered on March 11, 2025. |
| March 26, 2025 | We appeal to the Minister. |
| June 24, 2025 | The Minister of the Interior sets the denial aside (SL-OLVS-2025/006324-002). The decision is delivered on July 7, 2025. |
| December 2025 and January 2026 | The two commentaries that go furthest question the decision. |
| June 2, 2026 | Parliament passes Act No. 128/2026 Coll., amending the Citizenship Act (Act No. 40/1993 Coll.). |
| July 15, 2026 | The amendment takes effect. |
The decision came first, the published criticism followed, and the amendment came last. The amendment mentions neither.
What the 2025 decision settled
The Slovak Ministry of the Interior changed its practice on ancestors who emigrated before 1908/1910 and naturalized in the U.S. before 1918 after a case won by FALATH & PARTNERS: on June 24, 2025, the Minister of the Interior set aside the denial of our client’s application, and the Ministry has since granted citizenship in dozens of our clients’ cases of this kind. Each case now turns on a meticulously prepared, well-argued application, often supported with robust circumstantial evidence.
The June 2025 decision answered a question of substance: who became a Czechoslovak citizen in 1918. For a person born in today’s Slovakia, the Minister found that Section 2 of the 1920 Constitutional Act lays down “only two conditions”: birth on the territory, and not having acquired another citizenship by birth. Losing Hungarian citizenship through naturalization in the United States before 1918 did not stand in the way. The Ministry then granted our client’s application.
What the 2026 amendment added
Since July 15, 2026, Section 8(3)(k) of the Citizenship Act requires every descent application to include:
a document or record by which the applicant demonstrates that the applicant’s parent, grandparent, or great-grandparent was a Czechoslovak citizen born in the territory of the Slovak Republic.
This answers a different question, a procedural one: what the applicant has to bring. It applies to every application under Section 7(8) as a whole, without distinguishing between the different legal bases under which an ancestor may have acquired Czechoslovak citizenship under the 1920 Constitutional Act. It exempts no one, and the obligation to provide the evidence rests with the applicant.
Where the 2025 decision and Section 8(3)(k) meet
The amendment does not mention the 2025 decision, Section 2 of the 1920 Constitutional Act, or early emigration. It neither adopts the Minister’s reading nor rejects it. It could not have changed who became a Czechoslovak citizen in 1918 in any case, because that was settled by the law in force at the time. The condition an applicant has to meet today is, word for word, the one our client met in 2025.
What it changes is the ground on which an application is argued. Before July 15, 2026, the Act contained no item like this.
The published criticism of the 2025 decision predates the 2026 amendment
The two commentaries that go furthest, published in December 2025 and January 2026, were written under the law as it then stood. Neither could deal with Section 8(3)(k), because it did not exist yet. Their debate was about substance: whether an emigrant who naturalized before 1918 could have become Czechoslovak. The legislature has since acted, placing the burden of proof on the applicant. It did not take up the question the critics raised.
For families, that moves the practical risk. Under the old law, the worry was that a later decision-maker might not follow the Minister’s reading. Under the new law, the nearer risk comes sooner and is simpler: an application that does not demonstrate what Section 8(3)(k) asks for. Such an application can end in a denial, and after a final denial, the Citizenship Act does not allow a new application for two years.
Are early-emigration and pre-1918 naturalization cases still approved after the 2026 amendment?
Yes. Since the amendment took effect on July 15, 2026, the Ministry has continued to approve our clients’ applications, including early-emigration and pre-1918 naturalization cases. We prepare every application to answer Section 8(3)(k). Our clients benefit from the know-how we have built in this area since 2023: the legal analysis on which the 2025 appeal rested, and the legal arguments we develop from it in each client’s case.
If your ancestor left before 1918
The route is open, and the condition you have to meet is the one our client met in 2025. The decision still stands. What has changed is what the application must contain, and the decision does not answer that for you. Whether your application can satisfy Section 8(3)(k) is what our complimentary case review looks at first. At FALATH & PARTNERS, our record stands at 285+ approvals, and none of our applications have ended in a denial.
Submit your case for review. The complimentary case review is confidential. You can expect to hear from us within three business days.
General information on Slovak citizenship law, current as of publication. Not legal advice, and not a substitute for advice on your own circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.