Authored by Etienne Fauchaire via The Epoch Times,
A verdict by the Paris Criminal Court on March 31 drew strong reactions across the French political arena. Marine Le Pen, a prominent figure on the nationalist right and a three-time presidential contender, was convicted in a long-running case involving her party’s use of European Parliament funds to pay assistants. The ruling bars her from running in the 2027 presidential election.
For the first time since 1981, the Le Pen name could be absent from the ballot entirely.
The Paris court’s verdict against Marine Le Pen reverberated beyond France’s borders, drawing international criticism from prominent conservative leaders, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and U.S. President Donald Trump.
Trump, writing on his social media platform Truth Social, offered his unequivocal support on April 4.
“Free Marine Le Pen!” he wrote in all caps.
At the center of the case is the use of European Parliament funds to pay staff who worked simultaneously for Rassemblement National (RN), or National Rally, members of the European Parliament, and for the party itself. The court called it embezzlement, although it acknowledged there was no personal enrichment.
Le Pen and 21 co-defendants were convicted by the trial court. She was sentenced to four years in prison—two of them suspended—to be served outside of jail under electronic monitoring, along with a five-year ban from holding public office, effective immediately.
Le Pen denounced the ruling as politically motivated.
On the French television network TF1 on the same evening, she said, “The rule of law has been completely violated.”
The next day, she went further, calling the decision “a nuclear bomb” designed to wipe her candidacy off the map.
Jordan Bardella, president of the National Rally, denounced what he called the “tyranny of red judges.” Both Bardella and Le Pen say the case involves no embezzlement but rather an “administrative disagreement.”
The court rejected that defense, stating “this was not a matter of administrative errors or a misunderstanding by the Members of Parliament of confusing European rules.”
National Rally First Vice President Louis Aliot and former party treasurer Wallerand de Saint-Just, both co-defendants, said they stand by their defense of Le Pen.
“This isn’t embezzlement; it’s an administrative dispute,” Aliot told The Epoch Times. “Had the European Parliament clearly told us, ‘You can’t do this,’ we would obviously have acted differently.”
Aliot said that the rules governing parliamentary assistants had changed repeatedly over eight legislative terms, blurring the line between party activities and parliamentary duties.
“All the other political parties have done the same thing over the past decades,” he added. “The court should have taken that into account. It did not.”
The judges, for their part, rejected any suggestion of good faith. In their ruling, they concluded that the National Rally had engaged in “embezzlement within a system set up to reduce the party’s financial burden.” The defendants appealed this verdict.
Participants stand in front of posters during a gathering in support of President of Rassemblement National parliamentary group Marine Le Pen, after she was convicted of a fake jobs scheme at the EU Parliament, in Marseille on April 5, 2025. Clement Mahoudeau/AFP via Getty Images
Bayrou ‘Troubled’
Beyond the merits of the case itself, the most contentious issue in France centers on the court’s decision to enforce Le Pen’s immediate ineligibility for public office through a measure known as exécution provisoire (provisional enforcement). The ruling, which bars her from running in the 2027 presidential election before the appeals process is complete, is viewed, particularly on the right, as politically motivated.
Across the French right, political figures from Éric Zemmour (Reconquête) and Éric Ciotti (UDR) to Laurent Wauquiez (Les Républicains) voiced strong indignation at the decision to apply the sentence provisionally.
“It is not up to judges to decide who the people should vote for,” Zemmour said in a March 31 social media post. “I regret that politicians have handed such excessive power to the judiciary. Everything will have to be changed.”
On the presidential side, French Prime Minister François Bayrou voiced his unease, saying he was “troubled” by the court’s decision. Bayrou and his party, the Democratic Movement (MoDem), are implicated in a similar case. On Feb. 5, the Paris court acquitted the MoDem president, citing a “lack of evidence.” The prosecution has since appealed the ruling.
The leader of the far-left party France Unbowed, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, is also under investigation for the alleged misuse of EU parliamentary assistant funds.
Bayrou’s concerns were not echoed within French President Emmanuel Macron’s political camp.
“When an elected official is convicted of embezzling public funds, ineligibility is automatic. It’s the law. When there is a risk of reoffending (which is the case when the defendant denies having committed the offense), provisional enforcement is ordered. It’s the law,” lawmaker Sacha Houlié wrote on X.
Bayrou’s remarks were also harshly criticized by Socialist Party leader Olivier Faure, who said he was “troubled by the prime minister’s disturbance,” lamenting that “respect for the law, the rule of law, and the separation of powers are no longer on the government’s agenda.”
This view was echoed by legal scholar Paul Cassia, a professor of law and president of French anti-corruption association Anticor. In an op-ed for Le Monde, he argued the court justified the “proportionate nature” of its decision. He also said that a presidential candidacy “cannot, in itself, constitute a privilege or a totem of immunity … except by disregarding the principle of equal treatment under the law.”
Some legal experts dispute that interpretation. They argue that the court’s decision violates the presumption of innocence, enshrined in Article 9 of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Under French law, civil rights are not typically revoked until all appeals have been exhausted. Le Pen, they note, remains the leading contender in the 2027 presidential polls, making the immediate application of ineligibility particularly consequential and, in their view, disproportionate.
Critics also point to a perceived double standard. They argue that many of those now invoking the principle of equality before the law are the same voices who typically call for the individualization of sentences, a key concept in French criminal law often used to justify rulings perceived, particularly on the right, as lenient in cases involving insecurity and urban violence. This principle requires that sentences be tailored to the offender’s individual circumstances rather than applied mechanically.
To justify the accelerated enforcement of Le Pen’s ineligibility, the court invoked the spirit of the Sapin II law, passed in December 2016, which mandates automatic ineligibility for those convicted of misusing public funds. The events in question occurred between 2004 and early 2016, before the law was enacted.
Since judges could not legally rely on the Sapin II law itself, they instead based their decision on preexisting French legislation, which allows for ineligibility in such cases when justified. To support the provisional enforcement, the court cited two controversial arguments.
‘Risk of Recidivism’ Argument
The first justification offered by the court for the provisional enforcement of Le Pen’s ineligibility was the defendants’ “system of defense,” which it interpreted as evidence of a potential “risk of recidivism.”
In other words, Le Pen’s refusal to admit guilt and her decision to contest the charges were taken as signs that she might reoffend.
“Since they have completely refused to acknowledge any guilt … it is entirely legitimate to consider that they could very well reoffend, especially if they were to hold the highest offices in the country tomorrow,” Julien Boudon, professor of Public Law at Paris-Saclay University, told Le Monde.
Critics disagree. Speaking to The Epoch Times, legal scholar Ghislain Benhessa, who teaches at the University of Strasbourg, noted the court treated the National Rally’s opposition to the European Union, and in particular to the values of the rule of law promoted by the EU, as an aggravating factor.
“But Marine Le Pen has a constitutional right to defend herself and contest the charges,” he said. “You cannot, on the one hand, accuse the National Rally of undermining the rule of law, and on the other, criticize it for exercising its legal right to mount a defense.”
French lawyer Pierre Gentillet, known for his conservative views, said the court’s reasoning was “absurd.”
“The judges based their decision on intent rather than on materiality. And even if we consider intent, it was inferred simply because Marine Le Pen denied committing a crime,” Gentillet said. “At the time, she had no awareness that the actions taken under her authority might be illegal. And if we’re talking about the material risk of reoffending, how? She is no longer an MEP, nor is she the president of the National Rally.”
Risk to ‘Public Democratic Order’ Argument
Second, to argue that their decision was proportionate, the judges introduced what some describe as a novel—and legally questionable—concept: “public democratic order.”
According to the ruling, the candidacy, or eventual election, of Marine Le Pen to the presidency would constitute a “major disruption to democratic public order,” given that she has “already been convicted at first instance, notably to an additional penalty of ineligibility,” and “could later be definitively convicted.”
An attendee wearing a red Phrygian cap holds French national flags in front of the golden dome of Les Invalides, ahead of a rally in support of the president of Rassemblement National parliamentary group Marine Le Pen, in Paris on April 6, 2025. Julien de Rosa/AFP
Critics note that this concept has no legal foundation in French law.
“The court pulled it out of thin air,” Benhessa said. “And it is not the role of a trial court to invent new jurisprudential doctrines. That responsibility lies solely with the supreme courts—the Conseil d’État and the court of Cassation—who alone have the authority to shape jurisprudence in accordance with legal doctrine and the specific nature of a case.”
Former Constitutional Council member Noëlle Lenoir echoed the criticism in an op-ed for Le Figaro, stating unequivocally that “public democratic order” is an “unknown notion in the penal code” and that these judges did not base their decisions on the law.
Violation of Voter Freedom?
Just three days before the verdict, on March 28, the French Constitutional Council issued a ruling stating that ineligibility may only be applied immediately if it does not disproportionately infringe upon voters’ freedom.
While some legal scholars argue that the trial court has complied with that standard, by invoking the risk of recidivism and the concept of “public democratic order” to justify the proportionality of provisional enforcement, others strongly disagree.
In an op-ed for Marianne, Jean-Éric Schoettl, former secretary general of the Constitutional Council, accused the judges of openly defying the council’s guidance.
“They have rebelled against the Constitutional Council, and against the voters,” he wrote. “The provisional enforcement of Marine Le Pen’s ineligibility clearly has disproportionate consequences on the freedom of the voter, as it deprives millions of citizens of their natural candidate in the country’s most important election.”
Criminal lawyer Maxime Thiébaut echoed that warning, calling the court’s move a serious breach of legal norms.
“The judges have tainted their ruling with illegality,” he told The Epoch Times. “It amounts to interference in the democratic process. What legitimacy does a first-instance court have to declare that someone is unfit to run for president?”
Judicial Bias Alleged
In their interviews with The Epoch Times, both Aliot and de Saint-Just also alleged that the judiciary—prosecutors, investigating judges, and the bench—had demonstrated political bias.
For instance, they pointed out that investigating judges Claire Thépaut and Renaud Van Ruymbeke are both affiliated with the Syndicat de la Magistrature (Union of the Magistracy), a judges’ union that has openly called on magistrates to oppose the RN’s rise in the lead-up to the 2024 legislative elections.
The Syndicat de la Magistrature responded to criticism of the Paris Court’s decision, arguing that claims of “politicized justice” are “based on assumptions that verge on conspiracy theories.”
The impartiality of Judge Bénédicte de Perthuis, who delivered the verdict, has also been questioned.
Fueling further controversy, it emerged this week that Judge de Perthuis had cited Green politician and former magistrate Eva Joly as a personal source of inspiration in 2020.
Rémy Heitz, prosecutor general at the French Court of Cassation, took issue on RTL, a commercial radio station, with that line of criticism, saying this decision is the result of a “fair trial” and that it was handed down not by one but by “a panel of three independent, impartial judges.”
Race Against the Clock
On April 1, the Paris Court of Appeal announced it would fast-track its review of Le Pen’s case.
Ordinarily, appeals of this nature take between 18 and 24 months, meaning the timeline would likely have excluded Le Pen from the 2027 presidential race. In an unusual step, the court has announced its intention to deliver a ruling by the summer of 2026.
Benhessa acknowledged the exceptional nature of the move.
“This is highly unusual,” he said. “Given the media storm surrounding the first-instance ruling, I believe the Court of Appeal is trying to put the fire out. What’s striking is that they’re not just scheduling a hearing: they’re committing to a deadline.”
The main facade of the Paris courthouse (Palais de Justice), which houses the Paris Court of Appeal in Paris, France, on March 2, 2025. Milani/Hans Lucas via AFP/Getty Images
The Paris Court of Appeal declined to make any public comments on the decision.
Within the Rassemblement National, the announcement is seen as a tacit admission that the initial ruling was excessive.
“This is very good news, and I take it as a sign of the unrest the ruling has provoked,” Le Pen said.
“This shows that it’s actually the lower court’s decision that creates a disturbance to public order. The Court of Appeal has never done this for anyone,” Aliot told The Epoch Times.
The accelerated timetable should not be interpreted as a “disavowal” of the lower court’s verdict, Paris Chief Prosecutor Marie-Suzanne Le Quéau told Agence France-Presse.
Beyond France’s borders, the appeal will be closely watched, especially by conservatives and by the Trump administration, who are concerned that lawfare is rising in Europe and free speech is waning.
In Trump’s lengthy post, the president compared Le Pen’s situation to his legal battles.
“The witch hunt against Marine Le Pen is another example of European leftists using lawfare to silence free speech and censor their political opponents. … It’s the same playbook they used against me,” he wrote.
“I don’t know Marine Le Pen, but do appreciate how hard she worked for so many years. She suffered losses, but kept on going, and now, just before what would be a Big Victory, they get her on a minor charge that she probably knew nothing about—Sounds like a ‘bookkeeping’ error to me. It is all so bad for France, and the Great French People, no matter what side they are on.”
U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who in a speech in Munich last February warned of a “retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America,” also came to Le Pen’s defense.
“The Europeans, they are absolutely, 100 percent our friends,” Vance told Newsmax on April 3. “But that relationship is going to be strained, and it’s going to be tested, if they keep trying to throw opposition leaders in jail.”
