RN deputy defends Le Pen: With the appeal in cassation the presumption of innocence applies again

Paris – 08.07.2026: RN deputy Jean-Philippe Tanguy demonstratively backed Marine Le Pen after her announcement of a pourvoi en cassation. In an interview on France Inter he said that Le Pen “from the moment she goes to cassation is to be considered innocent again.” This refers to the presumption of innocence enshrined in the constitution, which in public debate is often understood as a political signal when a final-instance judgment is still pending.

The trigger is the proceedings concerning allegedly fictitious parliamentary assistants in the European Parliament. After convictions in first instance and on appeal, Le Pen announced she would appeal to the Court of Cassation. A pourvoi en cassation is not directed at the facts but at possible legal errors in the judgment. The procedure can lead to confirmation, to quashing with or without referral to another chamber. Until a final decision, certain ancillary effects of a judgment are often disputed in practice — nevertheless it remains enforceable in principle, unless suspensive effect is granted.

Politically the Rassemblement National is trying to maintain the momentum of its 2027 presidential project. Party leader Jordan Bardella and allies like Tanguy refer to the voters’ mandate and speak of a “return to the presumption of innocence” in terms of public perception. Opponents see this as a strategy to turn legal burdens into a mobilization narrative and shift the discussion away from the reasons for the judgment toward the legitimacy of the candidacy.

Legal experts emphasize that cassation is not a third instance for facts. What is examined is the interpretation and application of the law, such as the reasoning obligations of the court of appeal or procedural guarantees. A confirmation by the Cour de cassation would legally cement the appeal judgment; a quashing could lead to a new trial. For the question of eligibility to run for office in France, the type of conviction, finality of the judgment and any ancillary penalties are decisive. Whether and which incompatibilities apply depends on the final legal situation and cannot be assessed with certainty before a cassation decision.

In the coming days the RN will likely align its campaign logic with legal explanatory pieces, expressions of solidarity and an emphasis on its own program, in order to preserve the impression of a viable presidential candidacy. The opposing side demands clarity about possible consequences in the event of confirmation of the judgment. Thus the field of tension between procedural law, political communication and the early start of the 2027 election year remains the central reference point of the debate.