Analiza modificărilor aduse prin Legea nr. 241/2025 (Legea Vexler) Ordonanței de urgență a Guvernului nr. 31/2002, precum și Legii nr. 157/2018. Opinii privind critica acestor modificări
The analysis of the amendments brought by Law no. 241/2025 (Vexler Law) of the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 31/2002, as well as Law no. 157/2018. Opinions on the criticism of these amendments

Summary/Abstract: The paper objectively analyzes the amendments brought by Law no. 241 of December 23, 2025 to the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 31/2002 on the prohibition of fascist, legionary, racist or xenophobic organizations, symbols and deeds and on the promotion of the cult of persons guilty of committing crimes of genocide, against humanity and war crimes, as well as Law no. 157/2018 on some measures for preventing and combating anti-SemitismIn a climate inflamed by political interests, the risk of radicalization of anti-Semitic discourse through virtual means of communication in the public space and the apology of persons convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity requires much greater attention and concrete measures to prevent and, where appropriate, sanction such acts.As mentioned in the explanatory memorandum of the law, it is necessary to criminalize all serious forms that give expression to acts of intolerance, fascist, legionary, racist or xenophobic propaganda and on ethnic, racial or religious grounds, etc., so that there are legal instruments capable of allowing them to be countered by means of criminal law, as well as the urgent need to adapt the legislation to the factual reality and the new forms of manifestation of the criminal phenomenon, an inadequate legislation, generating the risk that citizens' rights and freedoms cannot be protected in a way adapted to the contemporary context.The conclusion of the cold analysis of the law amending the two normative acts is that some criticized provisions existed long before the appearance of the amending provisions, which denotes either the bad faith of those who criticized them, or the crass negligence of expressing opinions in relation to legal areas that are not mastered.Also, some changes were absolutely necessary in the context of the waves of online hatred generating offline violence that demand greater legal protection of European type social values given that democracy presupposes, among other things, the exercise of freedom of expression responsibly, and public education takes place including through coercive means that lead either to prevention, or to sanction.Even so, those amendments are not far-reaching, they either fill in some gaps in the two normative acts, or necessarily adjust – but it is not yet known if sufficiently – some provisions that, in any case, have not been applied so far.

• Details
• Contents