The appeal trial in the case of fictitious employment of European parliamentary assistants of the National Front, now National Rally, concluded on Wednesday in Paris. Convicted at first instance, Marine Le Pen, who is at stake for her eligibility for the 2027 presidential election, will have her fate decided on July 7. Summary of the fifth and final week of the hearing with the final arguments of the defense lawyers.

Published on: 02/12/2026 - 4:13 p.m.

For the last week of the appeal trial of the European parliamentary assistants of the National Front (FN), which was held from January 13 to February 11, the defense pleaded for the release of Marine Le Pen, the National Rally (at the time when it was still called National Front) and ten of its executives, including Julien Odoul, Nicolas Bay, Bruno Gollnisch and Louis Aliot.

Justice accuses them of having paid between 2004 and 2016, with money from the European Parliament, employees of the party, which was then experiencing financial difficulties due to poor electoral results.

At first instance, on March 31, 2025, the Paris Criminal Court declared the leader of the French far-right guilty and sentenced her to four years in prison, two of which were closed, a fine of 100,000 euros and five years of ineligibility with immediate execution for embezzlement of public funds. With this appeal, Marine Le Pen stakes her candidacy for the 2027 presidential election.

Here is what to remember from this fifth and final week of hearing.

See also What to remember from Marine Le Pen’s appeal trial

Monday February 9: for the defense, the status of MEP must prevent a conviction

At the start of the fourth week of the hearing, it was first a question of warding off the heaviness of the criminal court's judgment and the virulence of the comments it had aroused.

“Do not fall into the trap into which the first instance judges fell, that is to say making a political case,” urged the lawyer of MEP Nicolas Bay, Me Bernard Perret, according to whom “nothing would justify the ineligibility” of his client, “except to make this case a political trial”.

A little later, the lawyer for the current mayor of Perpignan Louis Aliot, Me Aurélia Grignon, noted that "this affair [had] become an affair of state": "We are constantly referred to the issue of what is being discussed here, the whole of France seems to have taken up it, comments, scrutinizes, criticizes, but not on the subject which concerns us..."

Because, beyond these general considerations, the defense intends to speak law. At issue is the offense of “embezzlement of public funds” for which all those involved are being prosecuted. The Penal Code defines it as "the act, by a person holding public authority or charged with a public service mission, (...) of misappropriating public funds (...) which [have] been given to him because of his functions or his mission".

Read alsoThe essentials of Marine Le Pen's appeal trial: "A questioning of the facade"

Here lies the main argument for demanding the release, notably developed by the lawyer of the assistant Guillaume L'Huillier, Me Nicolay Fakiroff: "The activity of the MEP is a political, institutional activity, exercised in the extra-national framework, it is not a public service mission".

The defense then suggests that the investigating judges should have targeted the offense of breach of trust, with a less restrictive definition than the misappropriation of public funds.

The lawyers also questioned the theory of the "system", pointed out at length by the prosecution and assumed as the "cornerstone" of the case by the general prosecutor's office.

“The invocation of a system cannot be a palliative to personal criminal responsibility: even if you judge [twelve] defendants at the same time, the case of each must be analyzed individually,” warned Louis Aliot’s lawyer in particular.

Tuesday February 10: “The organization chart is titles to make it look chic”

“Is an MEP a national or international public official?” : around this question already raised the day before, several pleadings of the defense were structured, Tuesday, in the RN appeal trial. At stake: the pure and simple release of all those involved, including Marine Le Pen.

At first instance, the Paris criminal court, before which the argument had already been argued, considered that they were “invested in France with an elective mandate” – in short, that they fell within the definition of embezzlement provided for by the Penal Code.

"The court forgot that the Constitutional Council had ruled that the European Parliament is an assembly which does not belong to the institutional order of the French Republic", argued Me Julien d'Andurain, lawyer for Nicolas Crochet, the "third-party payer", that is to say the one who received the sums from the European Parliament to pay the assistants of the FN MEPs.

Read alsoThe essence of Marine Le Pen's appeal trial: "It's curious this mention 'paid differently'"

He also recalled that the European Parliament itself had prevented the Lepenist elected representatives from placing a French flag on their desk, considering that they did not represent "the Member States, nor even the voters of these States, but all the citizens of the Union".

Conclusion, according to the black dress: MEPs are international public agents, and therefore cannot be convicted of embezzlement of public funds.

It was then Me Solange Doumic who demanded the release of her client, the former parliamentary assistant Catherine Griset. By focusing, this time, on the merits of the case: this close friend of Marine Le Pen, for whom she had been private secretary since 1993, “really worked for Marine Le Pen”.

A fact that no one disputes, the prosecution nevertheless considering that his activities served the president of the party much more than the MEP, since only the first cap appeared on the "organization chart" of the party.

“The organization chart is just titles to make it look chic,” said the lawyer, pointing to a folder on her desk filled with “five hundred documents” – “and that’s just a sample,” she clarified – which are intended to be proof of work for European parliamentarian Marine Le Pen.

See alsoWho is Marine Le Pen or Jordan Bardella for the 2027 presidential election?

Certainly, Catherine Griset did not work in Brussels, as her status as “accredited parliamentary assistant” at the European Parliament required. She also admitted that she had been able to "punctually" put herself at the service of her boss as number one of the National Front. “But there is no intentional element,” insisted Me Doumic, in unison with all the defendants and their lawyers, to better contest the offense.

It was the same for Me Henry Laquay, counsel to the treasurer of the Wallerand de Saint-Just party, who delved into one of the other main lines of defense: the absence of the "system" castigated last week by the public prosecutor's office.

“If we create a system, we do it at full capacity, optimally, to get maximum benefits,” he explains; However, according to him, the European Parliament's envelopes have not been used in full: "It's precisely because there is no system!"

The fact remains that his client is the author of an email that has become the centerpiece of the case: to a MEP who was worried that the organization put in place was similar to fictitious jobs, Wallerand de Saint-Just replied: "I believe that Marine knows all that."

“This email, I would have preferred that it did not exist”, began Mr. Laquay, “what he replied was bullshit…” Turning the argument around again: Wallerand de Saint-Just, who was a lawyer for thirty years, would never have recorded such a conclusion in writing if it contained any part of the truth. “This is proof that he did not take this email seriously.”

Wednesday February 11: end of the appeal trial, Marine Le Pen fixed on her future on July 7

Marine Le Pen will know her legal, and therefore political, fate on July 7: the Paris Court of Appeal is giving itself five months to rule.

The leader of the far right has already indicated that she would decide on a fourth presidential candidacy as soon as the appeal decision is announced, without waiting for a possible ruling from the Court of Cassation.

“We will deal with the date. I understand that they take time, it is an appeal court which has no room for error,” she added, confiding that she had no “regrets” regarding this second trial: “All the lawyers were remarkable and mine in particular”.

Read also Marine Le Pen's appeal trial: the story of the last day of hearing

A few minutes earlier, one of her lawyers, Mr. Rodolphe Bosselut, had concluded his two-hour-long pleading by calling on the magistrates: "Here she is on the verge of a crucial election for the country (...) But this presidential election makes the judgment that you will have to make dizzying."

Already, at the start of his argument, he had warned: "With all due respect, I tell you, this is not a gift."

The three magistrates of the court are in fact now faced with a political question: Should Marine Le Pen be able to run in the 2027 presidential election?

For the three-time unsuccessful presidential candidate, the equation is simple: she only needs to be sentenced to a maximum of two years of ineligibility and a suspended prison sentence to be able to try her luck again in 2027.

Also read: The essence of Marine Le Pen's appeal trial: "We can be criticized"

It is no less difficult: last week's requisitions are more or less consistent with the first instance judgment... which was also almost modeled on the first conclusions of the prosecution.

Since then, everyone has admitted that, in the absence of a real change in strategy, this second trial in any case took place in a much more peaceful atmosphere than the first, with a president whose "listening" was praised.

Enough to nourish the hope, however slim it may be, that a favorable outcome is still possible. “I am a believer... so I believe in miracles,” Marine Le Pen joked last week.

With AFP

Keywords associated with the article

The content you are trying to access does not exist or is no longer available.