Let’s recap the facts. Marine Le Pen and her party, the Rassemblement National (RN, or National Rally), are accused of having embezzled European funds intended for parliamentary assistants in the European Parliament. Instead of working on tasks related to European mandates, the assistants allegedly focused on the party’s national activities. The amount of money involved is €6.8 million. In addition to Le Pen, 24 people from her party are set to be tried, including Louis Aliot, mayor of Perpignan, MP Julien Odoul, and MEP Nicolas Bay, who since then has left the RN to sit alongside Marion Maréchal.
The hearings held in Paris last autumn attempted to establish the existence of a ‘system’ for the misappropriation of European funds. Marine Le Pen and her party’s defence was straightforward and appealed to common sense: a parliamentary assistant cannot be criticised for working in the interests of the party he represents, nor for engaging in politics, especially since the European Parliament’s rules of procedure do not precisely define the scope of tasks allowed for parliamentary assistants. During the trial, Le Pen forcefully reiterated that the “political activity” of an MEP in France “is an integral part of the mandate.” Consequently, she believes that the work of parliamentary assistants should not necessarily be linked to the EP. “An assistant works for his MEP, and he can work for his MEP for the benefit of his party.”
The main issue at stake in the trial is not the exact and precise content of the accusations. Other political groups have also been investigated for similar offences: the centrist party of the current prime minister, the MoDem, and the far-left party La France Insoumise led by Jean-Luc Mélenchon—albeit for lower amounts and for accusations involving fewer members.
Le Pen and her party will in all likelihood be convicted because her argument has already been deemed indefensible. “He who wants to drown his dog accuses him of rabies” (qui veut noyer son chien l’accuse de la rage), as the French saying goes.
The real issue lies downstream of the trial and has a dual dimension.
The first is financial. The RN is likely to be subject to very heavy fines. For a party that is regularly under financial strain, and which regularly faces almost systematic obstruction from French banks when trying to obtain loans to finance its campaigns, a fine of several million will weigh heavily on the organisation of future elections.
The second is political. In November, the prosecutor requested that Le Pen be ineligible to stand for election, with provisional enforcement without a suspensive condition. In other words, this means that the sentence will be applied even if Le Pen appeals the verdict. Normally, an appeal has the effect of pausing a ruling. But if the judges decide to follow the prosecutor’s advice, the first consequence will be to make it impossible for Marine Le Pen to stand in the 2027 presidential election.
Since the start of the trial, lawyers have been tearing each other apart over this case. It is a multi-faceted case with a complex distribution of responsibilities that can have very serious consequences. The game is not completely over. Several areas of uncertainty leave room for interpretation—maximalist or minimalist—on the part of the magistrates.
First, the length of the period in question. The facts under consideration extend from 2004 to 2016. The penalty of ineligibility for a case of this type has only become mandatory since 2016. The judges will therefore seek to maximise the period of analysis in time to give more legitimacy to their verdict.
Then, there is the question of provisional enforcement, i.e., the immediate application of the sentence to the accused, even if they decide to appeal the court’s decision. The prosecutor requested the provisional enforcement of the sentence in November. In other words, if Marine Le Pen is convicted, she will be instantly declared ineligible, even if she appeals. Will the magistrates follow the prosecutor’s recommendation? The law provides that this immediate enforcement must be justified and must “serve the general interest and aim to facilitate the enforcement of the sentence and prevent recidivism.” As Le Pen is unlikely to reoffend and her possible ineligibility would not interrupt her current term as a member of parliament, the only effect of the provisional enforcement of this sanction would be to deprive her of the opportunity to stand in the presidential election. The magistrates are well aware of this. The decision they will make will therefore be eminently political.
The RN has made it known that not only will the party appeal the decision, but it will also seek the help of all authorised bodies to win its case, including one of the highest authorities of the French State, the Constitutional Council. In such a case, a procedure exists, known as a Priority Preliminary Ruling on the Issue of Constitutionality (QPC, for Question Prioritaire de Constitutionnalité), to request that the provisional enforcement ruling be challenged. But what can be expected from a Constitutional Council whose opinions are publicly known to be politically orientated and to take orders from those in power?
The possible censure of Le Pen and her potential ousting from the next French presidential race obviously has to be seen in the more general context of fierce political struggles against all the political groupings in Europe that are trying to make the Brussels administration listen to a different tune. The Romanian example, a drama being played out before our eyes, is a perfect illustration of this. But it is also worth recalling the words of former European Commissioner Thierry Breton, who recently called for intervention in the German elections if the result defied the expectations of his caste. The legal tool is being used in the service of a political agenda of controlling public opinion to prevent the emergence of alternative political forces. (ER: And to wake up the public!)
In France, however, some voices are being raised against the risks connected with excluding Marine Le Pen from the next election. Prime Minister François Bayrou considered the possibility that Le Pen could be declared ineligible, with immediate enforcement of this penalty, to be “very disturbing.” Obviously, the RN, which is still very much centred around the daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen despite a significant renewal of its personnel, would suffer greatly, particularly because its current president, Jordan Bardella, is still too young to be able to stand for the highest office. But he will certainly benefit from a wave of sympathy in the face of what will clearly appear as a dark political manoeuvre against the party that embodies the main opposition to the current system.
As the French celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the referendum that saw the unexpected victory of the ‘no’ vote on the European Constitutional Treaty (ER: May 29, 2005. See HERE.), it is worth remembering that the French, often sheep-like (yes alas) but sometimes equally unpredictable, hate to have their destiny imposed on them in politics.
Source: TLB