The construction of the Gabčíkovo dam and hydroelectric power plant, which produces almost a tenth of the electricity consumption of the whole of Slovakia, was the most famous public project in the country under the Tatras. From the start, it has stirred controversy. It has significantly interfered in the life of the municipalities south of Bratislava, disrupted relations with Hungary and laid the foundations for a series of legal battles and corruption cases.
The project was decided upon during the former regime. It was to be a large water reservoir serving both countries. After the fall of the regime, however, the Hungarians stopped the work, because they could openly talk about the fact that the project offered more benefits for Slovakia and would affect the lives of people in the border region. The nationalistic rhetoric of the incoming Slovak politicians did not help either.
Slovakia unilaterally decided to complete the project on the Slovak side and in October 1992 the Danube was diverted from its channel near the village of Čunovo. Several areas in the vicinity that offered unique natural zones dried up, which outraged environmental activists. As part of the diversion of water from the Danube, several villages had to be flooded, and the inhabitants of neighbouring villages in the border area lost their original infrastructure links to each other. Criticism from Hungary only subsided after an international court in The Hague in 1997 confirmed that the 1977 treaty was valid, allowing the Slovaks to complete the project.
However, the corrupt mechanism has deprived the state of significant funds. Circumventing environmental rules and the subsequent remediation of this state of affairs came at a cost, and several lawyers profited handsomely from the lawsuits. Probably the biggest earners were the lawyers who represented the state in the dispute with Slovak Power Plants and its main shareholder Enel during the Fico government.
Robert Fico wanted to return Enel’s share in Gabcikovo to the state, claiming that the use was its by virtue of a previous lease agreement.
The state won its fight with the privateer and got its share in the profitable project back. However, the good news was spoiled by the later discovery that the state had paid a fee of 69 million euros to Radomír Bžán’s law firm for this legal success. After pressure from the media and the public, the state and Bžán reached an out-of-court agreement to reduce the fee to EUR 17.5 million. The police then stopped the investigation into who was responsible for the record fee.
Various cases and suspicions continue to emerge around the hydroelectric dam. For example, the overcharging of the contract for the cleaning of the reservoir is well known. A former deputy of the Justice Ministry later testified that through her, Fico’s economy minister tried to bribe a Supreme Court judge to rule in favour of the state in a dispute with Enel over Gabčíkovo.
