Romanian president challenges law on combating fascists, legionary propaganda at Constitutional Court

Romanian president Nicușor Dan has sent a law to the Constitutional Court (CCR) that criminalizes the online distribution of fascist, legionary, antisemitic, or xenophobic content, citing concerns over vague definitions and potential violations of free speech, Biziday.ro reported. One of the most significant changes introduced by the bill is the introduction of prison sentences ranging from six months to five years for those who distribute such content online, including materials that deny the Holocaust or war crimes.

The legislation, which amends the 2002 Emergency Ordinance banning fascist and racist symbols, organizations, and the glorification of war criminals, was adopted by Parliament and sent to the president for promulgation on June 21.

In his referral to the court, president Dan argues that the law was adopted in violation of constitutional norms and principles, according to Biziday.ro. He warns that any state action in a politically polarized society must avoid appearing as a tool used by the parliamentary majority against its opposition.

Moreover, he points out that the law lacks clarity regarding key terms, particularly the word "legionary," which is not defined in the ordinance.

While the law references the "Legionary Movement," it does not explain the link between that specific group - historically associated with Romania's interwar fascist Iron Guard - and the broader term "legionary" as used in the bill. The presidency also highlights the circular nature of how the law defines "legionary materials," stating that the legislation fails to meaningfully explain what constitutes such content and leaves room for arbitrary judicial interpretation.

Another concern raised is the lack of a clearly designated authority responsible for determining whether an organization is fascist, racist, or xenophobic. The president warns that this omission could lead to inconsistent rulings in both administrative and judicial practice.

Additionally, the law provides no criteria for determining whether someone belongs to the leadership of a prohibited organization.