Critical moment for democracy in Romania: censorship returns under electoral bureau’s abuse of EU law

Censorship officially returns to Romania after 35 years. Politically unaffiliated individuals—some well-known, such as Cristi Danileț (a former judge and vocal advocate for judicial reform), and Adrian Papahagi (a university professor and conservative intellectual)—as well as others less known, are being censored daily by the Central Electoral Bureau (BEC) based on a completely erroneous interpretation of European legislation.

Over the past ten days alone, the BEC has issued 166 decisions requesting major social media platforms to censor posts made by these individuals. Populated by largely unknown bureaucrats, the BEC is morphing into an Orwellian institution sowing the seeds for a drastic curtailment of freedom of expression.

What exactly is the BEC doing? It is asking major platforms like Facebook and TikTok to remove posts in which individuals express political opinions during the electoral campaign. The reason? The BEC considers these individuals to be “political actors,” which would subject them to stringent regulations at both the EU and national levels.

However, the foundation of the BEC’s actions is fundamentally flawed. In all its decisions, the BEC invokes EU Regulation 900/2024, which very clearly defines who qualifies as a political actor and under what circumstances they are allowed to conduct political advertising. According to the Regulation’s text, neither Danileț, Papahagi, nor dozens of other private individuals meet this definition.

It is outrageous that a state body, composed of judges, members of the Permanent Electoral Authority (AEP), and political party representatives, dares to reintroduce official censorship. Ordinary citizens are discovering that a handful of anonymous bureaucrats are forbidding them from expressing political opinions, stating who they want or don’t want to vote for, or criticizing presidential candidates.

A suffocating atmosphere is once again descending on the country—similar to last year, when the grand PSD-PNL coalition (a political alliance between the Social Democratic Party and the National Liberal Party) put such pressure on society that people voted out of a thirst for revenge in the canceled November presidential elections.

The first to flag this abuse of power were the eight organizations that make up the Coalition of NGOs for the Citizen. “Most of these BEC decisions are, in fact, violations of the freedom of expression of ordinary social media users. As such, the BEC is preventing voters from freely expressing their political opinions and preferences,” these NGOs stated in an open letter dated April 7.

A legal expert consulted by G4Media provided a similar explanation: “The BEC’s interpretation regarding online messages from individuals who are not political actors—and have no mandate from one—is erroneous and infringes on their freedom of expression.”

How did the BEC come to commit this abuse, which strikes at the heart of a democratic society: freedom of expression?

The Central Electoral Bureau equated these individuals with “political actors” by invoking provisions from EU Regulation 900/2024, as well as Emergency Ordinance No. 1/2025, EU Regulation 2065/2022, and Law 50/2024. These legislative acts lay out the framework for political advertising on social networks.

But the cornerstone of the BEC’s legal reasoning is the classification of these individuals as “political actors.” And EU Regulation 900/2024 defines the term explicitly:

Article 3, paragraph 4: “Political actor” means any of the following:

(a) a political party or any entity directly or indirectly linked to one;
(b) a political alliance;
(c) a European political party;
(d) a candidate for any elected office or a current officeholder at EU, national, regional, or local level, or a leader within a political party;
(e) a member of EU institutions (except the CJEU, ECB, and Court of Auditors) or a national/regional/local administration;
(f) a campaign organization formed solely to influence an election or referendum;
(g) any person or entity representing or acting on behalf of the above, and promoting their political objectives.

It is clear that the individuals censored by the BEC do not fall within this definition. Neither Danileț, Papahagi, nor the dozens of anonymous internet users are candidates, nor do they represent or act on behalf of any political party.

In other words, when deciding to censor these posts, the BEC failed to prove the existence of a representative relationship between the individuals and any political actor—or any formal mandate to act on their behalf. Instead, the BEC relied on the assumption that expressing political messages implies political affiliation or representation, as the legal expert consulted by G4Media emphasized.

Furthermore, the BEC also misinterpreted the legal provisions related to the definition of “political advertising” in the same EU Regulation 900/2024—all with the aim of silencing people who are fully entitled by the Constitution to freedom of expression.

This wave of censorship initiated by the BEC also reflects the inability of institutions to act in a balanced and professional way. From its inaction in the case of Călin Georgescu’s 2024 propaganda campaign (Georgescu is a far-right figure who leveraged social media to spread conspiracy theories), the BEC has now veered to the opposite extreme—overzealous repression. From negligence to authoritarianism.

While BEC decisions can be challenged in court, the legal process may take months or even years. In the meantime, these decisions are enforceable, meaning that major social media networks are obligated to delete the content flagged by the BEC, in order to avoid penalties themselves.

What the BEC is doing amounts to an abusive response from a state that a significant segment of society had asked to intervene after the 2024 campaign, when Călin Georgescu exploited flaws in the electoral system and went viral on social media. The lesson here is a vital one: be cautious when asking the state to intervene in matters of freedom of expression, because that’s all it takes—one opportunity—for it to start restricting rights.

It doesn’t matter what the motive behind this abuse is—incompetence, fear, or ill intent. What matters is that the BEC’s acts of censorship set a dangerous precedent for the health of society, and they must stop immediately. Otherwise, within a year, we risk waking up to newly restricted freedoms and fresh attempts to roll back constitutional rights.