French prosecutors confirm ineligibility request against Marine Le Pen in trial brought by far-right party.

247 - The French Public Prosecutor's Office has confirmed that it will seek disqualification from holding office for Marine Le Pen in the appeal trial involving the far-right National Rally (RN) party. The case investigates accusations of misappropriation of public funds intended for the payment of European Parliament staff. According to the Prosecutor's Office, there is no doubt that the RN and its leaders implemented a scheme to misuse resources. This information comes from [source name missing]. RFI.

The trial is taking place in the Paris Court of Appeal and directly influences Marine Le Pen's potential candidacy for the French Presidency in 2027. Tuesday's session (3) was dedicated to statements from the civil party, before the formal requests from the Public Prosecutor's Office. Prosecutors stated that they will request the full confirmation of the convictions imposed in the first instance, including ineligibility sanctions.

Prosecution reaffirms accusations and criticizes defense's stance.

"We will request that the criminal responsibility of the first instance court be fully confirmed, and ineligibility penalties will, naturally, be requested," declared the two representatives of the Public Prosecutor's Office at the beginning of their statement in court.

The prosecutors also criticized the stance adopted by the defendants throughout the process. According to them, Marine Le Pen and other RN leaders have resorted to a strategy of delegitimizing the judiciary, suggesting that the objective of the action was to prevent a party leader from accessing the highest positions in the French executive branch.

According to the prosecution, this argument is unfounded. "To believe that justice could oppose the will of the sovereign people is incorrect. It is to forget that the judge is the guardian of the law and only applies it," stated the attorneys general, at the end of eleven days of debates that they considered more serene than those of the first instance.

Conviction in the first instance. 

Marine Le Pen had already been sentenced in the first instance to four years in prison, two of which were suspended, in addition to a fine of 100 euros and a five-year ban from holding public office, with immediate execution. The sentence was described by RN leaders at the time as a political decision.

During the appeal hearing, Le Pen adopted a distinct tone, according to her lawyer Christophe Maisonneuve. "If a crime has been committed, I am willing to listen," the former leader of the far-right party reportedly said, in a statement cited by the lawyer, who interpreted the statement as a possible sign of a change in stance.

Evidence of the scheme 

Nevertheless, Maisonneuve maintained that the accusations continue to be acknowledged only superficially. "There is evidence that cannot be denied and that has continued to be denied before the court," he stated. The lawyer presented examples to support the accusation. One of them involves Julien Odoul, who allegedly admitted not working for the deputy for several months, claiming he received no assignments. According to Maisonneuve, Odoul worked in Marine Le Pen's office, although she claims to have no knowledge of this.

"This doesn't stand up to scrutiny: it's total denial," declared the lawyer. He also mocked the defense's argument, stating that it amounts to saying: "I meddled in something I shouldn't have, but nobody told me I couldn't, so it's their fault."

For the civil party, the European Parliament was the victim of a system in which RN MEPs used parliamentary assistants, paid with European funds, to act in the party's interest. The lawyer described the practice as a "betrayal of the citizens' trust," considered particularly serious given the duty of probity and exemplary conduct required of elected representatives.

According to the prosecution, the scheme operated for more than ten years. Maisonneuve also mentioned the defense presented by former MEP Bruno Gollnish, who stated that it was not a system, but an organization. For the lawyer, in practice, the two terms describe the same reality.