Le Pen Fails To Get Justice After First Appeal to ECHR

At the end of March, Marine Le Pen was convicted in a trial concerning the alleged misuse by the Rassemblement National of its parliamentary assistants in the European Parliament. The terms of her conviction jeopardise her participation in the 2027 presidential election. An appeal against the ruling has been lodged in France, and another appeal has also been lodged with the ECHR—which has just been dismissed, showing a political road filled with obstacles.

On March 31st, 2024, Marine Le Pen was convicted by a French court and given a heavy fine, a prison sentence, and a five-year ban from holding public office. The judge chose to rule in favour of the provisional enforcement of the sentence, even though he had the option to do otherwise. This means that the sentence took effect immediately, even though an appeal has been lodged, due to be heard in 2026. The consequences of the judge’s decision are brutally simple: as of now, Marine Le Pen cannot stand for election and may not be a candidate in the 2027 presidential election.

Regardless of the merits of the case, the manner in which this sentence was handed down demonstrates a political will to prevent Marine Le Pen from continuing her political involvement. The law has been distorted in a clearly activist way, surpassing its legal prerogatives.

The decision made by the French courts is part of a broader movement of judicial obstruction against figures deemed hostile to the dominant tone: Georgescu in Romania, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Trump in the United States. This is what motivated Grégor Puppinck, director of the European Centre for Law and Justice, to support Marine Le Pen’s appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. The French MP has lodged an appeal to request a suspension of the provisional enforcement of her sentence of ineligibility. He kindly agreed to answer our questions.

As Grégor Puppinck explained in a recent speech to the Conservative Group of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Marine Le Pen has been the victim of a judicial trap set in several stages, which inexorably closed in on her.

To try to avoid the trap, an urgent appeal was made to the ECHR: If the National Assembly is dissolved, Marine Le Pen is currently banned from standing for election. The French appeal procedure does not invalidate the ineligibility decision by the judge, and Marine Le Pen has no recourse against the decision imposed on her. She therefore asked the ECHR for an interim measure to lift the ineligibility while the substance of the case is under review.

On Wednesday, July 9th, her request was rejected by the ECHR on the grounds that there was no urgency. Marine Le Pen’s opponents hailed victory in the press and welcomed the European court’s confirmation of the French courts’ decision. 

The facts are somewhat more complex. The ECHR only ruled on the non-urgent nature of the request. It could have dismissed Le Pen’s request on the grounds that it was “out of scope” (a reason frequently used by the court to dismiss cumbersome cases without justification). It could also have ruled that the request was premature and that not all avenues of appeal had been exhausted. This was not the case, which leaves a small window open for a possible new request: if the prospect of a dissolution of the National Assembly becomes more likely, with the organisation of new elections, Le Pen would be perfectly entitled to file a new request.

Grégor Puppinck points out that the July 9th decision was taken by seven judges, whereas in most cases, a single judge is sufficient. This shows that particular attention was paid to this case. The ECHR has clearly grasped the core issue underlying Le Pen’s exclusion from the French elections.

However, much remains to be done, and the decision on the merits is expected at an as-yet-undisclosed date. The case will be judged according to the court’s schedule, which will be subject to other judicial and political schedules at both the French and European levels. The multiple attacks on the RN in the space of a few days prove that the offensive is only just beginning and will certainly intensify as major elections approach.

It is no secret that the ECHR rules on these cases according to its own interests. In the case of Georgescu, a candidate who was disqualified from the Romanian presidential election, it took several months for the ruling to be handed down. Perhaps we can expect a decision by spring 2026. But other cases have dragged on for ten years. In any case, the ECHR has never issued a single ruling in favour of a party it considers ‘far-right’ or populist. 

The case is, of course, important for Marine Le Pen. But it is just as important for the ECHR, whose position is currently weakened at European level, as Grégor Puppinck points out. No fewer than ten countries have signed an open letter questioning its overly favourable interpretations of migrants’ rights and denouncing the ECHR’s repeated violations of states’ sovereignty and their ability to take action on migration. The ECHR should be careful how it rules, because many French people will be watching this case closely and are just waiting for further proof of the corruption of this institution to fuel their resentment towards a machine that stands in the way of their democratic freedom of choice. It would be a mistake for the court to take a moralistic stance, defending its own ideological conception of Europe rather than adhering to the law, out of fear of the ‘risk’ of electing a ‘populist’ candidate.

In any case, the decision taken by the ECHR will be binding on France. On the French side, the case is off to a bad start. The appeals process will be lengthy, and if it ends up in Le Pen’s favour, an appeal to the Court of Cassation cannot be ruled out, which would instantly reactivate the candidate’s ineligibility: The Cassation procedure would automatically cancel the appeal ruling. For the RN and its voters, the horizon is therefore still darkened with heavy clouds.