Romania Adopts Stricter Law Against Antisemitism and Xenophobia

Type of Incident:
info
Date
December 22, 2025
Country
Romania

Romania’s Parliament has definitively adopted a law aimed at strengthening the fight against antisemitism and xenophobia, despite objections from President Nicușor Dan. Approved on Wednesday by the Chamber of Deputies as the final decision-making body, the bill is now set to be promulgated, with no further constitutional challenges possible.

The law, initiated by MP Silviu Vexler, president of the Federation of Jewish Communities in Romania, was passed with 173 votes in favor, 106 against, and six abstentions. It significantly increases criminal penalties for acts and organizations promoting fascist, legionary, racist, or xenophobic ideologies. The creation of, affiliation with, or support for such organizations can now be punished with prison sentences ranging from 3 to 10 years.

The dissemination of fascist, racist, or xenophobic materials is also criminalized, with penalties ranging from 1 to 5 years in prison — harsher if the offenses are committed online. Exceptions are made for acts committed in the context of academic research, education, the arts, or public debate.

The law also punishes the public glorification of individuals convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes, as well as the promotion of fascist or antisemitic ideologies. Holocaust denial, justification, or minimization in the Romanian context is now explicitly criminalized, with penalties of up to five years in prison if done digitally.

Additionally, the law prohibits naming streets, public places, or organizations after figures associated with these crimes or ideologies.

The legislation had faced repeated criticism, particularly from President Nicușor Dan, who warned of potential overreach and the risk of increased social tensions. Nonetheless, it was passed in its original form, signaling a clear intent by Romanian authorities to strengthen legal tools against extremism — while reigniting the debate over how to balance legal firmness with the protection of civil liberties.

Related incidents