Government MPs are preparing a law on the registration of entities with foreign ties

From a legal point of view, it is significant that the government’s programme talks about something narrower: transparent labelling of organisations that carry out political activities and are financed from abroad. By contrast, the working version described by the media is aimed more broadly at activity in the public, political, media, educational or academic space, insofar as it is capable of influencing public opinion and debate. This is important for the legal assessment because the broader and more vague the definition of the subjects and activities concerned, the greater the risk of problems with the certainty of the law and the predictability of its effects.

The biggest legal issue is precisely the breadth of the definitions. According to the published description, not only acts for the benefit of a foreign entity, but also consulting, analytical, communication, media or educational activities “in connection with a foreign entity” are to be considered foreign links. Such a definition can cover a wide variety of activities, including research, advocacy, international cooperation or grant-funded projects. Such obligations would need to be very precise in terms of who they apply to, when the obligation arises and what performance is already a “foreign connection”, otherwise there is a risk of unclear and unequal application.

Sanctions are another legal problem. A fine of up to CZK 15 million or up to 10% of income or turnover is very strict, especially if it would also apply to entities that are not entrepreneurs and whose activities are based on grant, foundation or donation funding. Such a model would inevitably raise the question of the proportionality of the sanctions and their relationship to the nature of the infringement. In other words, even if the State could require a certain level of transparency, it would still have to explain why the proposed sanctions are necessary and proportionate to the objective pursued.

The question of whether the proposal duplicates existing transparency regimes is also of practical importance. The government itself talks in the programme statement about a public register of subsidies for non-profit organisations from public budgets and about the obligation to disclose specific expenditure by organisations receiving public money. If the new law were to impose additional registration, reporting and record-keeping obligations without a clear distinction from the existing regimes, the legislator would have to justify convincingly why the existing instruments are not sufficient.

The proposal, as described in the media, also suggests potential tensions with the protection of personal privacy and security if detailed information about employees, job descriptions or foreign contacts were disclosed. This is particularly sensitive for organisations operating in international, research, human rights or humanitarian settings. Such interference would have to be not only lawful but also specifically justified and limited to the extent necessary.