The French political scene is abuzz with news of a trial commencing against the Rassemblement National (RN) for “misappropriation of European public funds.” The leading party of the French national Right is accused of having used its European parliamentary assistants to work for the party at the national level. Marine Le Pen, who is testifying in court from October 14th to 16th, intends to defend herself—and denounces a political cabal targeting her political party.
The trial opened on September 30th in Paris and is due to last until the end of November. Le Pen is under suspicion of misappropriating European public funds to the tune of €6.8 million. Behind this accusation is the suspicion of “fictitious employment” for the parliamentary assistants of the MEPs of the Front National (which became the Rassemblement National in 2018) who sat in Strasbourg and Brussels from 2010 to 2017—meaning that these parliamentary assistants were employed to work for the party, without actually working on European issues. In addition to Le Pen, 24 people from her party are due to be tried, including Louis Aliot, mayor of Perpignan and MP Julien Odoul, and MEP Nicolas Bay, who since then has left the RN to sit alongside Marion Maréchal.
Marine Le Pen is to be questioned for three days. On the first day of her hearings, her strategy was to highlight the fundamental problem behind the accusations made against the Front National: can a European parliamentary assistant be criticised for working for his ideas and the party that represents them, in the absence of a strict definition of the duties of a European parliamentary assistant according to the European Parliament (EP)?
In 2004, the Front National decided to ‘pool’ its parliamentary assistants. According to Le Pen
It makes no sense to have someone doing the same thing as the person next door. So there is a pooling of parliamentary assistants who can be asked for things, opinions, notes … and I didn’t think anyone could hold that against me.
Pooling leads some parliamentary assistants to give priority to working for the party, and therefore to have little presence in the EP, such as Le Pen’s personal assistant Catherine Griset, who is at the heart of the dispute.
Marine Le Pen denounced the EP’s closed system, described as a “blob,” which makes those who work there lose all contact with reality. The ‘return to reality’ represented by an MEP and his assistant working in France for his party is a question of the common good and mental health:
The European Parliament works in such a way that it swallows up the MEPs. You can sleep, eat and have your hair done there. There are bookshops, bars … Everything is done to ensure that MEPs live in a vacuum. Sometimes you have to say to them “hello, we’re in politics, you’ve got to go outside and tell people what we do inside.”
In addition, the former MEP points out that “there is no difference between accredited parliamentary assistants (those who work in the EP) and local parliamentary assistants (based in their countries of origin).” There is no difference in the work they are asked to do, as the president of the tribunal acknowledged. The difference is indeed purely statutory.
In terms of work, for Marine Le Pen, the “political activity” of an MEP in France “is an integral part of the mandate.” Consequently, she believes that the work of parliamentary assistants should not necessarily be linked to the EP. “An assistant works for his MEP, and he can work for his MEP for the benefit of his party.”
On the strength of these arguments, Le Pen totally rejects the idea of any misappropriation of European funds. She also insisted on another point: no MP or assistant had personally enriched themselves during this period.
At the end of the day, Marine Le Pen counter-attacked with a provocative phrase demonstrating the absurdity of the accusations against her: “I am being prosecuted before you, with all that that can entail. Psychologically, emotionally. Yes, I understand today that there is a risk. I understand today that a parliamentary assistant cannot have any political function.”
Other French politicians, such as the president of the centrist MoDem party François Bayrou, have been the subject of similar proceedings over the improper use of their European parliamentary assistants. In February 2024, Bayrou was acquitted “with the benefit of the doubt” after a seven-year legal battle. But it is not certain that the courts will show the same leniency to the RN. However, the sums involved were much smaller.
The trial that is now taking place could have major political implications for Marine Le Pen’s future career. She faces a penalty of ineligibility that could prevent her from standing in the next presidential election in 2027. No one in the RN wants to believe it, but the risk exists. In any case, if Le Pen were to be convicted, she would certainly appeal, which would postpone the final verdict until after the presidential election.
The impact of this trial on public opinion is difficult to assess. On the one hand, the targeted nature of the attacks on the RN may increase its sympathy among those who are convinced of the partiality of the judicial system. But on the other hand, a conviction for Marine Le Pen—even a minor one—could put off potential new voters who have so far refused to take the step of voting for the RN.
