“On July 7, 2026, the correctional appeals chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal, specializing in economic and financial offenses, delivered its judgment in the so-called “parliamentary assistants of the National Front” case.
She found the 12 defendants who had appealed guilty of the offenses of:
– embezzlement of public funds for Mr. Louis Aliot, Mr. Nicolas Bay, Mr. Bruno Gollnish, Mr. Fernand Le Rachinel, Ms. Marine Le Pen (then MEPs),
– complicity in embezzlement of public funds for Mr. Nicolas Crochet (then third-party payer), Ms. Marine Le Pen (then president of the political party), Mr. Wallerand de Saint Just (then treasurer), the National Rally,
– concealment of embezzlement of public funds for Ms Catherine Griset, Mr Timothée Houssin, Mr Guillaume L’Huillier, Mr Julien Odoul (then parliamentary assistants),
– concealment of embezzlement of public funds habitually committed by legal entity for the National Rally.
The court held that an organization had been set up to allow the European Parliament to pay for the remuneration of the parliamentary assistants of MEPs from the National Front, now the National Rally, even though their activities were unrelated to the mandate of their MEP and they were in reality working for the national political party.
She handed down sentences ranging from 6 months suspended imprisonment to 3 years imprisonment including 2 years suspended, fines and additional sentences including ineligibility. The court estimated the misappropriation of public funds to the detriment of the European Parliament at 2.8 million euros. She ordered the defendants to compensate her financial loss. The court issued acquittals for certain periods, considering that the conditions of the offenses had not been met.
Motivation on guilt
In its decision, the court analyzes the conditions of application of the offense of embezzlement of public funds with regard to the specificities of the European institutional framework.
The court thus holds that:
– the offense of embezzlement of public funds provided for by the French Penal Code applies to MEPs, being a person entrusted with a public service mission since they directly or indirectly carry out acts aimed at satisfying the general interest,
– European funds constitute public funds,
– these funds are given to the MEP to enable him to recruit and pay parliamentary assistants, within the limit of the sums allocated by the European Parliament. The court examined the guilt of the defendants for each contract, on a case-by-case basis, with regard to these criteria, factual elements and evidence. She noted that the mission of the parliamentary assistants was to assist the MEP in the exercise of his parliamentary mandate. The court recalls that the role of parliamentary assistants was known from the beginning, and that the definition and purpose of their tasks were clear and predictable, the European Parliament having only clarified, over time, its regulations.
The court considers that the mission of the parliamentary assistant, carried out under the control and authority of the MEP to whom he is attached, could not be carried out outside of this mandate. The exercise of militant political activity was thus only possible outside of working hours and provided it was compatible with the obligations resulting from the employment contract. She considers that the defendants knew that the contracts did not correspond to reality and that they allowed the collection of European funds to pay people working for the national political party.
The court thus held that a system had been put in place consisting of diverting the funds allocated by the European Parliament and using them for purposes other than those for which they were intended, namely the financing of jobs within the party. The court notes that the practices of embezzlement continued for more than 11 years, under the decisive leadership of Mr. (Jean-Marie) Le Pen, historic leader of the party, and of Mrs. (Marine) Le Pen, who took over from him, with the active assistance of the treasurer, the third party payer and the European deputies who signed up in large numbers to the system.
Motivation on sentences
The court recalls that the court pronounces sentences and sets their regime according to the seriousness and circumstances of the offense, the personality and personal situation of the perpetrator, so as to reconcile the effective protection of society, the sanction of the convicted person and the interests of the victim with the need to prevent the commission of new offenses.
It notes that the offense of embezzlement of public funds is based on the obligation of probity imposed on persons exercising a public function. It aims to protect the financial interests of the community and represses the violation of the trust that citizens are justified in placing in their representatives, because of the functions they exercise.
In this case, the court underlines the seriousness of the embezzlement. She notes that they took place over more than 11 years, despite reminders from the European Parliament of the importance of respecting its regulations. It indicates that these facts caused damage of more than 2.8 million euros, that they caused a breach of equality with other political parties and above all that they were committed by elected officials, in charge of the general interest and from whom total probity is expected.
On the other hand, the court held that there was no personal enrichment of the MEPs responsible for the embezzlement and that only some of the parliamentary assistants recruited were concerned. Only the national political party benefited from the embezzlement.
Regarding the penalties of ineligibility, the court recalls that at the material time, they were not obligatory. It considers that it is up to it to assess the proportionality of the sanction with regard to the infringement of the right of eligibility, to which must be attached the freedom of candidacies but also the freedom of choice of the voter, a condition for expressing democratic suffrage.
Concerning the particular situation of Ms. Le Pen, the court sentenced her to a three-year prison sentence, two years of which were suspended. The court imposed the firm part of the prison sentence in the form of home detention under electronic surveillance. The terms of this arrangement will be decided by the sentence enforcement judge. Ms. Le Pen was sentenced to a 45-month ineligibility sentence, 30 months of which were suspended.
The court considers that the execution of this sentence since March 31, 2025 has already repaired the attack on probity to an extent compatible with the fundamental guarantees recognized to the citizen and that ignoring it would undermine the principle of freedom of candidacy, an essential condition for a democratic expression of universal suffrage.
The judgment may be the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court within 10 clear days. »
