Ruling on July 7 in Paris: What the decision in the assistants affair means for Le Pen's eligibility in 2027

Paris – 07.07.2026: The Cour d’appel de Paris is delivering its judgment this Tuesday in the appeal proceedings over the employment of European parliamentary assistants that involve Marine Le Pen and the Rassemblement National. At the core is the allegation that EU funds were misused between 2004 and 2016 to the benefit of the party. The first-instance verdict from March 2025 found Le Pen guilty of misappropriation of public funds and envisaged a deprivation of electoral rights with immediate effect. In the appeal hearing in February, the prosecution sought five years of deprivation of electoral rights and four years’ imprisonment, including one year to be served.

For the 2027 presidential election two legal factors are decisive: the length of the deprivation and whether it is enforceable. Under French electoral law, a candidacy is excluded if a final deprivation of electoral rights of more than two years is enforceable. If enforcement is suspended in whole or in part, a candidacy is generally possible. The court can also order immediate enforcement or suspend it — this question determines whether a ban takes effect immediately or only after other legal remedies have been exhausted.

If significant parts of the conviction are upheld, Le Pen can appeal to the Cour de cassation. An appeal to the Court of Cassation examines legal errors, not the facts, and can suspend enforcement provided the appellate court has not ordered immediate effect. In comparable politically sensitive cases the Cassation has indicated it will schedule hearings quickly; however, there are no binding deadlines. For practical questions of eligibility, therefore, the timing up to the official registration period in 2027 is highly relevant.

Politically, a longer ineligibility (inéligibilité) would have tangible consequences for the Rassemblement National. Within the party scenarios have long circulated for the case of Le Pen’s exclusion, naming party leader Jordan Bardella as a possible replacement candidate. Such a move would change the RN’s strategic setup — from the allocation of roles in the campaign to programmatic ties to the former leading figure. For rival parties, an immediately effective ruling would also be a rupture, because it could shift the dynamics of candidate fields and alliances.

Regardless of the outcome, the legal timeline remains complex: in addition to a possible cassation appeal, applications to suspend enforcement could be conceivable. Only the interaction of the judgment, any ancillary decisions on immediate effect, and further legal remedies will allow a reliable statement about Le Pen’s eligibility to run. The decision of the Paris Court of Appeal therefore constitutes the central reference point for the next steps in the proceedings — and for the question of who will lead the political right as its top candidate ahead of the 2027 presidential election.