What does the court ruling mean for Marine Le Pen’s presidential chances? | Marine Le Pen
A court in Paris has ruled on Marine Le Pen’s appeal against her conviction for embezzling public funds, which could in principle allow France’s far-right figure to run in next year’s presidential election.
Here’s a look at the decision, the case that led to it, and what the court ruling means for Emmanuel Macron’s race to become president of France.
What did the court decide?
The appeal court upheld the lower court’s March 2025 decision, which found Le Pen guilty of misusing EU funds. However, the duration of both parts of the original sentence was shortened: a ban on holding public office and a partially suspended prison sentence.
The appeals court handed a 45-month ban from office, with 30 months suspended, to the three-time presidential candidate who transformed his far-right National Rally (RN) from an extremist group into the largest single party in the French parliament.
The court, which found her guilty of misusing European public funds in her capacity as both a member of the European Parliament and the then-president of the RN, also sentenced Le Pen, 57, to three years in prison, two of which were suspended, and the third to be kept under house arrest with an electronic ankle tag.
In March 2025, the lower court sentenced Le Pen to a five-year ban from public office with immediate effect and a four-year prison sentence with two years suspended; which essentially put his fourth candidacy for the presidency of France on hold pending an appeal decision.
What was the case about?
Le Pen, along with 23 former MPs, assistants and accountants, as well as the National Rally as a party, were accused of running a system that used money for the employment of European parliamentary assistants to pay staff working for the party in France.
The defendants were suspected of embezzling €4.4 million between 2004 and 2016, initially under Marine’s father Jean-Marie Le Pen and after 2011 under his management. Among the employees declared as parliamentary assistants were a private secretary and a bodyguard.
The lower court ruled that “Marine Le Pen distinguished herself with authority and determination within the framework established by her father” and played a “central role” in “optimizing” a system designed for “savings”. [the party] money thanks to the European parliament”.
Le Pen claimed her party was the victim of a “witch hunt” and appealed with 10 others, denying at her second hearing that her party had any system aimed at embezzling EU money and saying she had acted in “entirely good faith”.
Prominent nationalist figures such as Viktor Orbàn in Hungary and Matteo Salvini in Italy condemned the lower court’s decision as a “violation of democratic norms”, while Donald Trump called it a “huge event”, comparing it to his own legal battles in the US.
What does the appeals court’s decision mean for Le Pen?
After its decision, the appeals court stated that it aimed to “assess the penalty in the light of any violation of the right to vote” and argued that “the freedom of choice of voters, which is a prerequisite for democratic voting, must be taken into account.”
That’s exactly what he did: by actually reducing his ineligibility period to 15 months (45 months in total, 30 of which were suspended), allowing him to run for president in principle, since the 15 months began with a lower court ruling in March last year.
But being ordered to wear an electronic bracelet for a year made it politically and practically very difficult for him to do so; but 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 the house only at fixed, pre-agreed hours to go to fixed, pre-agreed destinations. Occasionally exceptions may be requested, but it is by no means certain that they will be granted.
What might he decide and what might that mean for the elections?
Le Pen has repeatedly stated that she would not run for president if she had to wear an electronic tag on her ankle, saying it would be impossible to run an effective campaign if her movements were restricted.
However, the time the ankle tag must be worn can be shortened. Anyone “deprived of his liberty” has the right to request a reduction of his sentence by up to six months for each year, subject to good behavior and the provision of the necessary guarantees.
If Le Pen resorted to this route, it would mean that she would launch her campaign too late and, if the request is rejected, could harm the chances of her appointed lieutenant, 30-year-old Jordan Bardella.
He is expected to announce his decision in an interview on French television on Tuesday evening. If he remains on the sidelines, he will at least have the knowledge that some recent polls suggest Bardella is more popular than him.
Polls show that the RN candidate, whether Le Pen or Bardella, will easily win the first round on April 18. Second round predictions are split; some polls suggest former prime minister Édouard Philippe, a centrist candidate, could prevail.
