Marine Le Pen’s indictment on Monday for embezzling EU funds, and the furious reactions it has provoked, reflect a growing narrative among right-wing politicians that the establishment is conspiring against them – with troubling implications for the future of judicial independence.
Not too long ago evidence of criminal wrongdoing would destroy a political career, even on the far right. In 2019, footage emerged of two senior members of Austria’s Freedom Party trying to offer government contracts to a Russian oligarch; the party was forced out of government and spent years in the wilderness.
The contrast with Le Pen is stark. Far from accepting her fate, she has railed against the “tyranny of judges,” said the system has dropped a “nuclear bomb,” and vowed to keep fighting. Her party has rallied around her, including her heir apparent, Jordan Bardella. Even some of her political opponents have raised concerns about the ruling.
“The narrative of her party is that this is a stitch-up by the elite. And they're going to portray this as that. And some people will be convinced by that,” said Ronan McCrea, professor of constitutional and European law at University College London. “I don't think it's correct because it does seem that they're guilty of quite serious offences. But the problem is the public aren't paying that level of detailed attention.”
The stitch-up narrative echoes across European borders. In December, amid allegations of Russian interference, Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled a presidential election after the first round in which a far-right candidate, Călin Georgescu, took the lead; he has since been barred from the re-run.
More generally, the determination of mainstream parties to keep the far right out of coalition governments, most notably in Germany where the Alternative for Germany (AfD) placed second in February’s elections, are widely seen on the right as an anti-democratic attempt to suppress such parties and the views they represent.
“What we are witnessing today in France is the collapse of democracy, and a total denial of the will of the French people through their representatives,” said Eddy Casterman, a member of the French National Assembly who is an ally of Le Pen.
“France has often given lessons in the rule of law to other countries,” he told The Parliament. “But France shut down a popular television channel, put a former president of the Republic in prison and prevented a leader of the opposition from running in the presidential election.”
This narrative is being amplified by outside influences. US Vice President JD Vance has criticised what he describes as attempts by the European mainstream to stifle free speech, referring specifically to the Romanian case. Elon Musk, who is close to President Donald Trump, referred to that case as an “abuse of the judicial system.” The Kremlin has also deplored the decision as a “violation of democratic norms”.
Banned from office
The Le Pen case is so explosive because it could affect the outcome of France's 2027 presidential elections. Le Pen has gotten closer to the presidency with each of her three successive bids and is by some measures France’s most popular politician. With President Emmanuel Macron constitutionally barred from seeking a third term, her supporters saw 2027 as the year she would finally win.
“The objective [of the court] is crystal clear,” Casterman told The Parliament. “It is to prevent the favourite from running in the next presidential election.”
In legal terms, the controversy is that she has been banned from office with immediate effect, whereas the legal norm in France is for punishments to be suspended while defendants appeal the decision.
“You have a presumed innocent person who is appealing but is condemned to immediate political death,” Jean-Paul Garraud, an MEP from National Rally, and a former judge and magistrate, told The Parliament.
The decision is not unique in French history: A former mayor and a former prime minister were both handed down similar sentences. But it’s the highest-profile and most consequential use of such powers in modern French history – and that has put mainstream politicians in a bind.
“It's a real dilemma for the French parties. You can't just say ‘she's a very popular political candidate, we're not going to punish her for being part of a systematic defrauding of the public’,” said McCrea. “On the other hand, in the current political context, it'll probably strengthen her movement.”
Several deputies in the National Assembly have questioned whether the law was interpreted correctly. A visibly troubled Prime Minister Francois Bayrou said on Tuesday that “France is the only country to do this,” adding that “it’s our job to make sure the law corresponds to what the French want.”
Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin has called for a timely appeal hearing for Le Pen – while also defending the magistrates and deploring threats made against them.
Whatever the eventual outcome of the case, it demonstrates how courts are coming under pressure from the polarisation of European politics. And when voters start to think courts serve political interests rather than the rule of law, democratic principles themselves are at risk.
Testing the limits
Growing mistrust of the courts gives governments a popular mandate to curb their powers or ignore their rulings – especially governments led by right-wing parties whose supporters see themselves as victims of judicial bias. Many are now testing the limits, using the hot-button topic of migration to override the courts.
This week in Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni revived plans to enable the repatriation of migrants to Albania. Italian courts have so far struck down detention orders on human rights grounds, preventing deportations to a new Albanian facility. But Meloni’s move has circumvented the legal objections by designating the facility as a “repatriation detention centre.”
The pattern is being repeated across Europe. The previous UK government effectively overruled the Supreme Court with its Rwanda asylum plan (though this was eventually shut down by the new Labour government). Finland is also bidding to extend migrant pushback laws, despite legal warnings.
The legal system is “the foundational principle of all democracies. In order to have a democracy, you need to have the rule of law,” said Joelle Grogan, head of research at the UK in a Changing Europe think tank. “[If] you have that political influence and political control in courts, you no longer have rule of law. You have rule of politics. You have rule by law.”
“It's actually a sign of a healthy democracy for courts to rule against public powers or rule against the state or rule against the government if they haven't obeyed the law,” she told The Parliament. “It's very normal for governments to say something like, ‘I'm disappointed in the judgement’. But when it's very concerning is when states and governments start attacking judges and attacking the very system itself.”
In France, Le Pen and her allies won’t forget the events of this week. And they’re still confident of eventually taking the presidency and inflicting a reckoning on the French establishment.
“In 2027, I am convinced that Marine Le Pen will be elected as president of the Republic, and Jordan Bardella as prime minister. This ticket has been maintained, despite everything that has been done against us,” said Garraud. “Of course, the judicial system will be reformed.”
Sign up to The Parliament's weekly newsletter
Every Friday our editorial team goes behind the headlines to offer insight and analysis on the key stories driving the EU agenda. Subscribe for free here.