What does the court ruling mean for Marine Le Pen’s presidential chances?
A Paris court has delivered a ruling on Marine Le Pen’s appeal against her conviction for embezzlement of public funds that could – in principle – allow France’s far-right figurehead to run in next year’s...
A Paris court has delivered a ruling on Marine Le Pen’s appeal against her conviction for embezzlement of public funds that could – in principle – allow France’s far-right figurehead to run in next year’s presidential election.
Here is a look at the ruling, the case that led up to it – and what the court’s decision means for the race to succeed Emmanuel Macron as French president.
What did the court decide?
The appeal court upheld a lower court verdict from March 2025 that found Le Pen guilty of misusing EU funds. However, it reduced the length of both parts of the original sentence: a ban on holding public office and a part-suspended jail term.
The appeal court handed the three-time presidential candidate, who has transformed her far-right National Rally (RN) from an extreme fringe group to the largest single party in the French parliament, a 45-month ban from office, of which 30 months were suspended.
Finding her guilty of misuse of European public funds in her capacity both as an MEP and the then-president of the RN, it also ruled that Le Pen, 57, must serve a three-year jail term, with two suspended and the third spent under house arrest with an electronic ankle tag.
In March 2025, the lower court had sentenced Le Pen to a five-year ban from holding public office, with immediate effect, and a four-year prison term, with two years suspended – in effect putting her fourth run for France’s presidency on hold until an appeal was heard.
What was the case about?
Along with 23 former MEPs, assistants and accountants, as well as the National Rally as a party, Le Pen was accused of running a system that used money meant for employing European parliamentary assistants to pay staff working for the party in France.
The defendants were suspected of having embezzled €4.4m between 2004 and 2016, at first under Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine’s father, and after 2011, under her. A personal secretary and a bodyguard were among employees declared as parliamentary assistants.
“Marine Le Pen asserted herself with authority and determination within the framework established by her father,” the lower court ruled, playing a “central role” in “optimising” a system designed to “save [the party] money thanks to the European parliament”.
Le Pen claimed her party was the victim of a “witch-hunt” and, with 10 others, appealed, denying during her second trial that her party had any kind of system aimed at embezzling EU money, and saying it had acted in “complete good faith”.
Prominent nationalist figures, such as Viktor Orbàn in Hungary and Matteo Salvini in Italy, denounced the lower court verdict as a “violation of democratic norms”, while Donald Trump called it a “very big deal”, comparing it to his own legal battles in the US.
What does the appeal court decision mean for Le Pen?
The appeal court said after its decision that it had aimed to “assess the penalty in light of any infringement of the right to stand for election”, arguing that “voters’ freedom of choice – a prerequisite for the expression of the democratic vote – must be a consideration”.
That is exactly what it did: by in effect reducing her ineligibility for office to 15 months (45 months in total, with 30 months suspended), it ensured she could, in principle, run for the presidency, since the 15 months began with the lower court verdict in March last year.
However, by ordering her to wear an electronic bracelet for a year, it has made it very difficult, politically and practically, for her to do so – although the exact terms of house arrest and electronic tagging must be decided by a different judge in the coming weeks.
In principle, an order of “house arrest under electronic monitoring” implies leaving home only during fixed, pre-agreed hours in order to go to fixed, pre-agreed destinations. Occasional exceptions can be requested, but are by no means certain to be granted.
What might she decide - and what could it mean for the elections?
Le Pen has repeatedly said she would not run for the presidency if obliged to wear an electronic ankle tag, saying that it would be impossible to campaign effectively with her movements curtailed.
However, the period for which an ankle tag must be worn can be reduced. Anyone who has been “deprived of their liberty” is entitled, with good conduct and after presenting the right guarantees, to request their sentence be cut by up to six months for every year.
If Le Pen went down that route, it would mean starting her campaign very late, however, and could damage the chances of her anointed lieutenant, 30-year-old Jordan Bardella, if the request were rejected.
She is expected to announce her decision in an interview on French television on Tuesday evening. If she does stand aside, it will at least be in the knowledge that some recent polls have suggested Bardella is even more popular than she.
Polls suggest the RN candidate, whether Le Pen or Bardella, would comfortably win the first round, due on 18 April. Forecasts for the runoff are divided, with some polls suggesting a centrist candidate, the former prime minister Édouard Philippe, could emerge victorious.
