Convicted but still running: What Marine Le Pen’s political gamble means for France and the rest of Europe

Marine Le Pen will be a candidate in the 2027 presidential election.

On the 7^th of July 2026, the verdict fell. Until that day, Le Pen’s candidacy had seemed compromised. While the Paris Court of Appeal had upheld her conviction for embezzlement of public funds in the case of the “European parliamentary assistants” of the Front National (renamed Rassemblement National in 2018), the court shortened her electoral ban, making her eligible to stand. But what happens now?

Marine Le Pen’s conviction hasn’t ended her campaign; it has merely reshaped it. The woman who, in 2013, argued for implementing “lifetime ineligibility for anyone convicted of crimes committed while in office” now appears to be backtracking. Marine Le Pen is already envisioning herself at the Élysée Palace, where she speaks of a “winning ticket” with Jordan Bardella, whom she would appoint as prime minister in the event of a victory in the next presidential election.

Convicted yet still in the presidential race, Marine Le Pen has thrown French politics into uncharted territory, with ripples reaching far beyond France’s borders. This article sketches out how consequential this development might be.

A whirlwind legal saga

Le Pen’s case has been unfolding for years. Between 2004 and 2016, Marine Le Pen and several party officials were accused of paying Front National employees in France with funds intended to pay European Parliament assistants. The alleged damages are estimated at 4.1 million euros. In March 2025, the Paris Criminal Court found her guilty of misuse of public funds, with a severe sentence: four years in prison, two of which were suspended sentences (meaning imposed by the court but not enforced as long as no further offence is committed within a specified period) and the remaining two to be served under electronic monitoring, a €100,000 fine, and five years of ineligibility for office, with immediate enforcement. While she immediately appealed the ruling, the last point had been the most politically explosive, since it effectively excluded her from the 2027 presidential race even before her appeal was heard.

One year later, on 7 July 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal upheld her conviction, ruling out the acquittal some RN officials had hoped for. However, the sentence was less severe: three years’ imprisonment, two of them suspended, with the remaining year to be served at home under electronic monitoring. Her ineligibility for office, meanwhile, was reduced to 3 years and 9 months, of which 2 years and 6 months were suspended – amounting to only 1 year and 3 months that had to be served effectively. Since this period has already been served as of 2025, she would be eligible to run immediately.

The ruling nevertheless presented Le Pen with a political dilemma. Although it cleared her path to the election, it also left her facing the prospect of campaigning under electronic monitoring – something she had previously ruled out. On the afternoon of 7 July, some were therefore already envisioning Jordan Bardella, the president of the RN, taking up the mantle. That evening, however, Le Pen announced on French television that she would appeal to the Court of Cassation. Because the Court of Appeal did not order the immediate enforcement of her new sentence, the appeal suspends the electronic-monitoring requirement while the case is pending. She can therefore begin her campaign without an ankle monitor – although she could be required to wear one if the High Court upholds her sentence a few weeks before the first round of the election, scheduled for 18 April 2027. “It’s double or nothing,” in the words of a French political historian. Given the stakes, the RN will likely have every incentive to see the Court of Cassation’s ruling delayed for as long as possible, ideally past the election itself.

An explosive announcement igniting the political spectrum

These statements are not without consequences and are already provoking strong reactions across the French political class. On the right, the Secretary-General of Les Républicains accuses the RN leader of “holding democracy hostage.” On the left, the leader of the Ecologists spoke out, saying that “in a normal world where the National Rally had even the slightest shred of morality, Marine Le Pen would voluntarily withdraw her candidacy.” “She no longer has any credibility to guarantee the authority of the state,” said the Socialist Party leader. In the centre, presidential candidate Gabriel Attal emphasised the “moral dimension” of a candidate “convicted twice” of misusing public funds. Édouard Philippe, also a candidate in 2027, refrained from directly criticising what he called “a choice that belongs to her,” while stressing that she will have to “explain it to the French people.” Across the spectrum, the reactions reveal a shared unease, even among rivals reluctant to attack her directly, about the precedent her candidacy sets for the norms governing French political life.

On the European side, this ruling has brought relief to the Rassemblement National’s European allies. For Hungary’s former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, it was nothing short of “justice for Marine, a victory for France, and a beacon of hope for the freedom-loving nations of Europe.” At the same time, Dutch PVV (Party for Freedom) leader Geert Wilders went further still, hailing her outright as “the new president of France.” Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini framed the moment as one for the people rather than the judges, urging her to let the “word pass from the judges to the citizens,” and Vox leader Santiago Abascal saw in her “fight and courage” the makings of “a great president of the Republic.” Others read the verdict less as vindication than as a near-miss: Krzysztof Bosak, Deputy Speaker of Poland’s Sejm and leader of the National Movement, welcomed it for averting an “extremely dangerous precedent” that would have seen the opposition’s frontrunner judicially shut out of the race, while Vlaams Belang leader Tom Van Grieken struck a warier note, insisting the electronic monitor that remains shows “what the system wants: the opposition in chains, democracy on a leash, the people gagged.” Across these otherwise divergent reactions runs the same thread: for a populist right that casts itself as under siege by an unelected judiciary, Le Pen’s continued candidacy reads not as one party’s legal drama but as validation of their own fight.

Indeed, there is another issue at stake at the European Union level. In its ruling, the appeals court explicitly justified the reduction of the period of ineligibility by citing “the voter’s freedom of choice, a prerequisite for the exercise of democratic suffrage.” This legal reasoning risks fuelling a narrative promoted by the European far right, already echoed in 2025 by figures such as Orbán, that legal proceedings against populist leaders amount to political persecution rather than a simple application of the law. The trial of Marine Le Pen is allowing for “a faint chorus of dissent against the democratic institutional framework” to grow, confides a French political historian. “The RN has revived an old political argument: every time […] there has been […] political and financial misconduct […] it was a conspiracy by the judges or even a conspiracy by political opponents.” This debate extends beyond France: it echoes similar controversies in Romania, Slovakia, and elsewhere in Central Europe, where populist movements have denounced legal proceedings targeting them.

2027 on probation

The appeal to the Court of Cassation also creates an unprecedented situation: a candidate leading the French polls would campaign under a judicial sword of Damocles, with a ruling not expected until late 2026 or early 2027, a tight window given how close that is to the election itself. Two scenarios follow. If the high court rules before the first round on 18 April 2027, Le Pen could be forced to resume wearing the electronic ankle monitor just weeks before the vote, a major logistical and political handicap for the RN candidate. If, instead, the ruling comes after the election and she has already won, the question of presidential immunity would arise for the first time under the Fifth Republic: according to Franceinfo, she could invoke the mechanism that shields a sitting head of state from certain legal proceedings during their term. Either path would directly test the balance between the judicial and executive branches, an issue likely to reignite debate well beyond France. Le Pen’s legal case, in other words, is far from closed. By appealing to the Court of Cassation, she buys time, but the move changes the timeline, not the substance of the case. Either way, the Court of Cassation’s decision, expected in April, will mark a turning point in the coming presidential race, even before the French people have their say at the ballot box.