'Fautes graves, peines légères' : Marine Le Pen gets away with it

How wrong can you be?

Well, the answer is very. I was very wrong. In my defence, I don’t think anyone could have called it correctly. Or if they claim they did, they are saying the thing that is not.

The occasion was the France 24 English channel lunchtime news programme on 7 July 2026, the date the Paris court had fixed to deliver its verdict on the appeal by Marine Le Pen and a dozen or so other co-defendants regarding the fraudulent, systematic use of European parliament funds to finance the old Front National. (The original trial had featured some 25 defendants.)

Following the original trial (in the autumn of 2024), in March 2025 the tribunal handed Le Pen herself a swingeing sentence of five years ineligibility to stand for office, with immediate effect, irrespective of any appeal (‘exécution provisoire’), a four-year prison term, with two years suspended, and a fine of 100,000 euros. While the French political class let out a collective gasp of disbelief at the severity, the details of the court’s ruling underlined that the sentence reflected Le Pen’s role in the fraud. She had not been a simple observer of this process. It had not just happened ‘on her watch’. She was at the centre of the arrangements and was fully aware of what was going on.

Le Pen immediately appealed, but the ineligibility clause swung into effect all the same. In the event, this worked in her favour, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. She had to give up her seat on the departmental council for the Pas-de-Calais, but, because of a previous ruling by the Constitutional Council regarding national elections, she did not have to resign her seat in the National Assembly (though had there been a dissolution, she would have been unable to stand). Despite Le Pen’s endless (and wearying) protests that she was, yet again, the victim of ‘the system’, the court of appeal in fact accelerated its processes so that the case could be heard anew in January and February 2026, with a verdict due in the early summer. Hence the invitation from France 24 for me to join them on the lunchtime bulletin on 7 July.

So, how was I (very) wrong?

We hoped that the court verdict might have dropped by one o’clock. In fact it didn’t come until about 45 minutes later. So, towards the end of the interview, the always excellent Genie Godula asked me to gaze into my crystal ball and give my best guess of what the verdict might be. Now, in the build up there had been all sorts of speculation about what might happen. Acquittal was out of the question. The usually well-informed Le Canard enchaîné had been running with reduction of the ineligibility to two years. That would expire in March 2027 and allow Le Pen to run, but on the eve of the verdict she herself had stated that if she were found guilty again, the ineligibility was reduced and she had to wear an electronic tag, then she could not campaign freely and therefore would not run, standing aside for young Jordan Bardella (more on him another time).

Based on a close reading of the original tribunal’s detailed and forthright judgement of the case, I thought the court of appeal would confirm the original sentence(s). That was my best guess and that’s where I was wrong. But no-one had anticipated the exact terms the court would hand out nor that the judges would make so explicit a reference to the political context.

The period of ineligibility was reduced from 60 months to 45, but with 30 suspended, leaving 15 months. Given that the original verdict had been handed down in March 2025, that part of the sentence was already spent. Le Pen was free to stand. The prison sentence was reduced to three years with two years suspended. The most practical outcome would be a year wearing an electronic ankle tag. The fine remained the same.

So, there we were, at 2p.m. Le Pen was free to run for election, but, as things stood, would have to wear a tag, which she said she would not do. Le Pen, her legal team and the RN leadership retreated to party HQ to decide what to do next and ahead of a scheduled interview on the main TF1 news programme at 8p.m. that evening. In between, most of the speculation focussed on how wearing the tag could be attenuated/negotiated downwards, largely ignoring the fact that wearing a tag is already a considerable reduction from a year in prison.

Very few commentators anticipated that Le Pen would announce to the nation her decision to take the case to the Court of Cassation because, again between trials, she had said that if she found guilty a second time, she wouldn’t do that. However, effectively writing off the ineligibility altered the case fundamentally. Now that was spent, the way was open for Le Pen to try one further appeal, given that that would suspend all over penalties, including the tag, pending the court’s decision.

The Court of Cassation is a court that hears appeals on grounds of law and process, not on the facts of the case. I often use it as an analogy for my students who want to contest their degree results because they think the marks are ‘unfair’. That is not for them to judge. Universities will only hear appeals on grounds of process, not on academic judgement. So, Le Pen is appealing this time that some part of the original case/sentence was defective on grounds of process, not because she didn’t commit fraud. It’s a risk and she could lose.

The question then is, when is the case likely to be heard. The first ballpark date is early in 2027, but Le Pen’s legal team will try to push that back if at all possible. The dates for the presidential election have been announced as 18 April and 2 May 2027 (I got those wrong too). If the appeal dates were late enough for the verdict to be after 2 May and she were to win the election, under the terms outlined by the Constitutional Council, any sentence would be suspended until after her presidential term of office, in 2032.

So, the Bardella candidature – the plan B that had begun to look like plan A, as someone described it – is off the table for now. Discounting Le Pen’s determination to campaign for the ultimate prize, whatever the cost and irrespective of the risk of the Court of Cassation rejecting her appeal is a dangerous business. Le Pen and her advisors have calculated that her electorate is solid, despite the fact that she is a twice-convicted felon. Her line is that ‘only the French people can judge me’. She will have to conduct a campaign where her opponents will repeatedly return to her convictions. But she is willing to wear that and even make some sort of virtue of her vice. If that sounds perverse, let’s not forget what Donald Trump said about shooting someone in Times Square.

As Le Monde put it, ‘fautes graves, peines légères’ : serious offences, light punishment. Getting away with it.

Coming soon - Quelle déception - Jordan Bardella is a brave soldier