Le Pen’s Lawyers Tell Appeals Court She Lacked Intent to Commit Offence

On the last day of an appeal hearing in Paris, lawyers for far-right leader Marine Le Pen argued she never intended to break the law in connection with the alleged misuse of European Parliament funds that led to a five-year ban from running for public office. The conviction and ban, handed down last March, stem from a ruling that party staff were paid with EU funds earmarked for parliamentary work between 2004 and 2016. The appeals court’s decision will influence whether Le Pen can seek the presidency in 2027, or if National Rally will field its current president, Jordan Bardella, instead.

Key Points

Le Pen was convicted last March of misusing EU funds and received a five-year ban from holding public office.
Her lawyers argued to the Paris appeals court that European Parliament rules were unclear and that she never intended to commit wrongdoing; a defence lawyer said she was unaware she had committed an offence if the acts qualify as such.
If the appeals court upholds the conviction, Le Pen can appeal to the Cour de Cassation, which has said it would try to rule on any final appeal before the spring 2027 election - if a ban remains she may be replaced as the party’s candidate by RN president Jordan Bardella.

Marine Le Pen’s legal team told a Paris appeals court on Wednesday that the far-right leader did not intend to commit an offence in the case that resulted in a five-year prohibition on holding public office.

The hearing marked the final day of a pivotal appeal that could determine whether Le Pen is eligible to stand in the 2027 presidential election. Le Pen was convicted last March of misusing European Union funds, a verdict linked to a finding that she and others had diverted more than 4 million euros ($4.7 million) set aside for work at the European Parliament to pay individuals in roles that the court determined were actually party positions.

Judges concluded that, between 2004 and 2016, funds intended to support parliamentary activities were used to remunerate staff performing duties for the National Rally party. Le Pen has denied the accusations throughout.

Defense arguments presented to the appeals court

Le Pen’s lawyers, Sandra Chirac Kollarik and Rodolphe Bosselut, told judges that the rules of the European Parliament were unclear and that their client never intended to perpetrate wrongdoing. Kollarik stated in court: "If what she did then is an offence, she isn’t aware of having committed one." The defence framed the case as an absence of criminal intent rather than willful malfeasance.

Prosecutors confirmed last week they are seeking a five-year ban on running for public office for Le Pen, matching the punishment already imposed, although they abandoned an earlier demand that the ban apply regardless of any further appeals.

Legal avenues and timing

If the appeals court upholds the conviction and follows the prosecutors' recommendation, Le Pen still has the option to take her case to France’s highest court, the Cour de Cassation. That court has indicated it would aim to issue a ruling on any final appeal before the election. Any decision issued close to the vote, scheduled for the spring of 2027, could complicate the National Rally’s electoral planning.

Political implications

Le Pen had been widely viewed as a leading contender for the 2027 presidential race until the conviction. Should the ban remain in force and she be unable to stand, the National Rally’s president, Jordan Bardella, is expected to be the party’s candidate in her stead. The appeals court’s ruling will therefore shape the party’s immediate presidential strategy.

The outcome of the appeal will determine whether Le Pen can pursue the presidency herself or whether the party must pivot to an alternative candidate as it prepares for the next national ballot.

Risks

Timing risk - A late ruling by the Cour de Cassation close to the 2027 vote could disrupt National Rally’s electoral preparations and campaign strategy; sectors affected include political campaigns and media coverage.
Legal uncertainty - Continued appeals and potential upholding of the ban prolong uncertainty around leadership and candidacy, which could influence political risk assessments and election-related markets.
Reputational and organizational risk - The National Rally faces strategic pressure in candidate planning depending on the appeal outcome, with implications for party operations and donor engagement.

Menu

Key Points

Risks

More from World