Romania’s top court calls antisemitism draft law ‘clear, precise and predictable. ‘
Romania’s top court on Thursday rejected a legal challenge by President Nicusor Dan that antisemitism legislation lacked clarity.
The Constitutional Court on Thursday ruled that the draft law on measures to combat antisemitism and xenophobia was clear, precise and predictable.
The court unanimously ruled that the president’s challenge, who said he feared causing further divisions in Romanian society, was “unfounded”. Among the judges that voted against his contestation was Dacian Dragoș, a new judge whom Dan proposed to the court.
In a press statement, the court rejected all Dan’s arguments that the legislation was unclear and unpredictable.
“The Court found that the law subject to constitutional review is clear, precise and predictable,” a press release said.
The legislation which Parliament passed Friday was criticized by members of the Jewish community, including the leader of the Jewish Federation, Silviu Vexler.
Mr. Vexler, who is also a lawmaker, handed back a presidential honor, the National Order of Merit in protest at Dan’s move.
“The Romanian state must act firmly to prevent and combat incitement to hatred, xenophobia, discrimination of any kind,” wrote Dan when he challenged the law. He said the draft could infringe on constitutional freedoms, and outlaw the honoring of some anti-communism activists.
“However, if it does not do so in a balanced manner, in strict compliance with the constitutional provisions, the effect will be the opposite. Romanian society is strongly polarized, trust in state authorities is at a low level and any state action that refers in an unbalanced way to this polarization increases social tension and distrust in authorities,” he added.
The Constitutional Court’s arguments:
- “In essence, in relation to the criticisms formulated by the author of the objection, the Court found that the law subject to constitutional review is clear, precise and predictable in relation to the content of the regulation, which it related to the object and legitimate purpose of the law, that of protecting by criminal means, the most important social values of a democratic society, based on the need to ensure the dignity of the human being and the full respect of the rights and fundamental freedoms.
- In order to pronounce this solution, the Court held that the Nazi, fascist and legionary ideology are historical and political concepts that cannot be relativized by legal definitions of positive law, since they reflect historical social realities that founded real criminal political regimes that physically eliminated groups of people, practicing systemic violence, political assassinations and anti-Semitism. By their purpose, these totalitarian political regimes violated the principles of the rule of law, human rights and democracy.
- Both the normative consecration of specific crimes and the purpose of the criticized law are justified and legitimate because they seek to protect, through the means specific to criminal law and with proportionate guarantees resulting from the right to a fair trial that underpins the conduct of any criminal trial, the essential values and principles of democracy against facts that pose a major danger to the foundations of democratic political systems.
- The decision of the Constitutional Court takes note of and falls within the set of European democratic principles and values, being in line with the legal arguments used by the European Court of Human Rights in a rich jurisprudence.
