–Analysis–
PARIS — The Paris Criminal Court has opted for the most extreme decision: Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right Rassemblement National party (National Rally, RN), has been declared ineligible for public office for five years, effective immediately.
The fact that the frontrunner for France’s next presidential election, in 2027, is now unable to run for office makes her four-year prison sentence — only two of which are suspended — almost secondary, even though such a sentence is no small matter.
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
The self-righteous say that in a state governed by the rule of law, judicial decisions should not be questioned; that it was legislators who mandated automatic ineligibility for cases involving the misuse of public funds; that judges simply applied the law, as some say. That is inaccurate.
The intense atmosphere in the Paris courthouse on Monday morning was explained by the fact that the judges had other options. They could have ruled out ineligibility, imposed it with a suspended sentence, or at the very least, not enforced it immediately.
Suspensive effect
In a similar case involving the centrist MoDem party’s parliamentary assistants — where the practices lasted for a shorter period — the court handed down much lighter sentences, with ineligibility that was entirely suspended, making all the difference.
Thus, the decision to bar Le Pen from the presidential election was a deliberate choice, not an automatic or legally mandated ruling. The court’s justification for immediate enforcement is weak: that elected officials should not receive any special privileges.
But not immediately enforcing a sentence of ineligibility is not a question of privilege; it is a fundamental principle of criminal law that an appeal should have a so-called suspensive effect.
Judicial overreach
It is surprising to hear those who champion the rule of law and the European Convention on Human Rights celebrating what is, in effect, a major infringement on the fundamental right to an effective appeal. This principle ensures that a defendant has the opportunity to appeal and have their case re-examined before a sentence is enforced. If the punishment has already been carried out by the time the appeal is heard, then the right to appeal becomes meaningless.
The question is why the court made this deliberate choice.
Immediate enforcement can indeed be applied in certain cases, such as for a prison sentence when there is a risk that the defendant might flee the country. But who could reasonably argue that Le Pen poses such a risk? The suspensive effect of an appeal is not a privilege but a core element of the right to a fair trial. Stripping it away means treating an elected official worse than an ordinary citizen.
It is also worth noting that this case did not involve personal enrichment or corruption. Legally, it qualifies as the misuse of public funds, amounting to several million euros. In reality, not a single cent went into anyone’s pocket.
Instead, some parliamentary assistants worked for the party rather than for the specific lawmakers they were employed under. The boundaries of legality were certainly crossed, but in a gray area where those boundaries were not always clear. It is the role of courts to clarify these boundaries, but not necessarily to impose sanctions that disqualify.
Opposite effect
The question is why the court made this deliberate choice. The courts are becoming increasingly severe in their treatment of politicians, and we must recognize this, particularly those on the right. Judicial independence is an essential safeguard. But like any power, the judiciary must guard against the temptation of overreach.
What will Marine Le Pen voters do if they are stripped of that electoral choice?
When judges begin deciding who can and cannot stand for election, they are directly interfering with the people’s right to choose their representatives. In such cases, they should exercise extreme caution. Yet this ruling, by enforcing immediate ineligibility, effectively nullifies any meaningful appeal process.
The consequences of this ruling are hard to predict. In the United States, the multiple prosecutions against Donald Trump have only strengthened support for him. Political-judicial affairs have the perverse effect of tending to erode public trust — not only in politicians but also in the judiciary. Instead of restoring faith in the system, such rulings often achieve the opposite effect. This should serve as a warning to judges, as well as to the institutions and media outlets that specialize in exposing political scandals.
Many supporters of François Fillon — the 2017 presidential candidate for the right-wing Les Républicains party — felt that the fast-tracked judicial process that led to his indictment just before the election unfairly deprived them of a victory. Some of them subsequently shifted their support to Le Pen. Now, what will the voters who saw Marine Le Pen as their voice do if they are stripped of that electoral choice?
There is reason to fear that the court has played with fire.