The decision of the French court to impose a five-year ban on moving for Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Assembly, has sparked immense controversy not only in France but throughout Europe.
This case has sparked a discussion on the double standards in the enforcement of European Union rules and allegations of the political motives behind this decision. Le Pen was found guilty of abuse of EU funds, but according to many commentators and journalism reports, akin actions were common practice among Euro MPs – and only a fewer were punished.
The court in Paris ruled that Marine Le Pen and another members of its organization had committed embezzlement of EU funds that were allocated to organization activities in France alternatively than within the structures of the European Parliament. On this basis, she was banned from applying for any public office for 5 years – effectively excluding her from participating in the 2027 presidential election unless the appeal ends earlier.
The prosecution was based on misuse of funds allocated to the functioning of the Euro MP's office. Each associate of the European Parliament shall receive crucial resources for the employment and operation of staff in Brussels and Strasbourg. Le Pen, like many others, was to allocate any of these funds to the activities of the national party.
“Follow the Money” report: 139 MEPs violated the same provisions
According to a study published in 2023 by the investigative portal Follow the Money, between 2019 and 2022, 139 MEPs – about one-fifth of the European Parliament – broke the same rules on the usage of EU funds. Despite this, as the Times of London points out, only 1 Euro MP – Eva Kaili – actually faced justice.
Eva Kaili, a Greek socialist and erstwhile vice-president of the European Parliament, was at the heart of the alleged Qatar-gate affair. As part of this scandal, left-wing politicians were accused of taking bribes from Qatar in exchange for lobbying for his benefit. However, its case was exceptional – 138 another Euro MPs only had a recovery order, without criminal proceedings.
The decision towards Le Pen has been taken by many as an example of the selective application of the law, especially against politicians criticising the European Union. 1 specified case was Nigel Farage, a run leader for Brexit, who was besides investigated in the context of fraud and was forced to return about £35,000. However, in his case too, there was no judicial process or prohibition of public office.
A erstwhile BBC journalist, Michael Crick, in a conversation on Times Radio, stressed that the usage of EU funds to finance national political activities has long been a “polyshinel secret” among Euro MPs.
“Everyone did it, knew it, and did not study abuse due to the fact that they could be charged themselves. The European Parliament did not want to publicise the issue so as not to undermine assurance in the European institutions," Crick said.
The writer besides noted that Eurosceptics were more frequently investigated than politicians promoting European integration.
“If you are a Eurosceptic, you are more susceptible to consequences. The strategy is unjust," he added.
In comparison, François Bayrou, Prime Minister of France and leader of the pro-European MoDem party, was besides accused of akin abuses. Cases of embezzlement of EU funds were besides found in his party. Still, Bayrou was acquitted, and the charges against him were dropped. Moreover, the prosecution demanded for him only a three-year ban on serving, which is 2 years little than for Le Pen.
The court granted Bayrou ‘a benefit of doubt’ despite the fact that another members of its organization were found guilty. This case has been received by many as evidence that the judiciary is acting differently towards mainstream pro-European politicians than against Eurosceptic opposition leaders.
Le Pen reaction and the future of the case
Marine Le Pen powerfully criticized the court's decision, comparing it to practices known from authoritarian regimes. In her opinion, the ruling is not only incompatible with the rule of presumption of innocence – which is valid until the end of the appeal process – but besides politically motivated.
"This ruling is an assassination on the regulation of law and democracy," Le Pen said, announcing the fight for annulment of the judgement in the appeal.
It is possible that the appeal proceedings will end before the 2027 elections, but this is not certain. French courts are traditionally left-wing, which may further impede Le Pen's conflict to repeal the sentence.
Democracy threatened?
The full substance has meaning beyond the borders of France. It raises questions about the independency of the judiciary, equality before the law and real equal opportunities in European politics. Can democracy be healthy if the rules of the game are applied selectively?
If the accusations against Le Pen are true, there is no uncertainty that she should endure the consequences. However, if dozens of another Euro MPs have committed the same crimes and avoided any responsibility, are we dealing with equality before the law – or are we utilizing the law as a tool for political combat?
The Le Pen case can become a precedent – not only legal but besides political. It can besides influence the future presidential elections in France. yet Marine Le Pen was, according to the polls, 1 of the main candidates to take over after Emmanuele Macrona. Its exclusion from elections can seriously change the arrangement of forces on the French political stage.
