MARINE LE PEN: FROM POLITICAL SUCCESS TO CONVICTION. WHY IS THE RASSEMBLEMENT NATIONAL LEADER CURRENTLY INELIGIBLE?

Have you got a question?

I. The Rassemblement National under siege.

Marine Le Pen, leader of the French far-right and figurehead of the nationalist party Rassemblement National, has been sentenced by the Paris Criminal Court to four years in prison—two of which under house arrest—as well as an additional five-year ban on eligibility for public office due to the alleged embezzlement of EU public funds intended for the salaries of European parliamentary assistants.

The ruling, upholding the case brought by the Paris Prosecutor’s Office, found that between 2004 and 2016, Le Pen and eight other MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) from her party allegedly used funds meant for European parliamentary assistants to finance political activities of the Rassemblement. The alleged fraud has been estimated at around € 2.9 million.

The verdict is a major blow to what is currently the largest party in France, especially considering that the presiding judge of the Paris Court ordered the immediate enforcement of the ineligibility penalty, effectively removing the Rassemblement National leader from the 2027 presidential race.

II. Who is Marine Le Pen? From “dauphine” to undisputed leader of the French political scene.

Born in 1968, Marine Le Pen is the daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen, former leader of the French nationalist party Front National (now Rassemblement National), which he founded in 1972.

In 1986, the heiress of the elder Le Pen followed in her father’s footsteps by becoming actively involved in the party, and was appointed party president in 2011.
From then on, Marine Le Pen initiated a real “dédiabolisation” process (literally, “de-demonization”), a strategy aimed at distancing the Front National from the most extremist political positions that had marked her father’s leadership. This strategy—along with the decision to expel Jean-Marie Le Pen himself—helped the party, now renamed Rassemblement National, gain increasing support from moderate French voters.

In recent years, Marine Le Pen has run for president three times, with steadily increasing results. In 2012, she came third with 17.9% of the vote. In 2017, she reached the runoff (France’s second voting round) against Emmanuel Macron, receiving 33.9%. In 2022, she again faced Macron in the runoff, improving her share to 41.5%, or more than 13 million voters.

It’s no surprise, then, that the darling of the French right was considered one of the leading contenders for the 2027 presidential elections.

III. The Paris Criminal Court ruling in brief.

As mentioned, this verdict sets a notable precedent for the future of French politics by effectively barring one of the most popular candidates from running for office. In summary, the Paris Court charged two main criminal offenses:

First, violation of Article 432-15 Code penal (French Criminal Code), which deals with “détournement de fonds publics”—misappropriation of public funds by a public official (such as a civil servant or someone carrying out a public mission) who, in the course of duty, diverts or uses funds for personal or third-party benefit. The court found this offense applicable to the systematic misuse, between 2004 and 2016, of approximately €2.9 million in European public funds, originally intended for parliamentary assistants.
Second, in relation to Le Pen and the eight other MEPs, violation of Article 321-1 Code penal (French Criminal Code), regarding “recel”—the offense of receiving, concealing, or using property derived from a crime, while being aware of its illicit origin. Here again, the issue was the improper use of EU funds for purposes unrelated to legitimate parliamentary work.

To assess whether the offenses occurred, the Court examined whether there was actual work performed by the assistants under the contracts that linked them to the MEPs—in plain terms, whether the accused deputies, including Le Pen, paid assistants with EU funds for real work, or whether it was merely a cover. Based on the evidence, the trial judge concluded that the assistants did not carry out any work tied to the MEP mandate, instead working solely for the party—and in one case, directly for Le Pen herself. The contracts were therefore deemed objectively fraudulent. The investigation also showed that these actions were part of an organized system that persisted at least since 2004, extending even to earlier behavior not directly prosecuted in this case. From a procedural standpoint, the Paris judge rejected Le Pen’s defense argument that the Court lacked jurisdiction due to parliamentary immunity. The judges noted that parliamentary immunity serves to protect free exercise of electoral mandates, but does not exempt lawmakers from abiding by democratic principles. No constitutional or international provision grants total immunity, and, in fact, elected officials should be held to a higher standard of integrity. Granting them absolute immunity would violate equality before the law. Similarly, the Court rejected the defense’s claim that political activity cannot be scrutinized. The judges clarified that the case was not about parliamentary activity per se, but about whether parliamentary assistants worked for their party while being paid with European funds, thereby rendering their employment contracts a sham. The Court thus found that Le Pen and the other defendants, while holding public office, committed crimes of embezzlement and receiving stolen goods, over a continuous period from 2004 to 2016.

IV. The political fallout. The future of the French executive.

It is not the writer’s place to judge Marine Le Pen’s guilt or innocence, nor is it appropriate to comment on someone who remains innocent until proven guilty.

Although the Paris Court has ordered immediate enforcement of the ineligibility sanction, Le Pen still has the right to appeal, and may seek to overturn the ruling on second instance.

However, being barred from political life until 2027 is undoubtedly a serious blow for the Rassemblement National leader, especially considering the notoriously slow pace of justice, which might cost her the chance to run for president.

Whatever one may say, Marine Le Pen is, in fact, one of the most influential political figures in France today, both among openly right-wing voters and among those on the more moderate fringes.

Her exclusion, in fact, further complicates the already fragmented French political landscape which, as early as 2024, prompted President Macron to dissolve the National Assembly (one of the two chambers of the French Parliament, along with the Senate) and call for early legislative elections in an effort to establish a clearer government majority.

In light of these considerations, one could reasonably ask whether justice should take precedence over government stability, and if so, to what extent such a choice would actually benefit ordinary people.

In response to this question, the author would like to remind that only a unified executive, one that represents, as much as possible, the political ideas of the majority, can work serenely toward building the common good.