{"id":1529348,"date":"2025-04-09T07:30:00","date_gmt":"2025-04-09T11:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/?p=1529348"},"modified":"2025-04-09T07:30:00","modified_gmt":"2025-04-09T11:30:00","slug":"the-tyranny-of-red-judges-the-rationale-criticisms-the-politics-of-the-le-pen-verdict","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/the-tyranny-of-red-judges-the-rationale-criticisms-the-politics-of-the-le-pen-verdict\/1529348\/","title":{"rendered":"“The Tyranny Of Red Judges”: The Rationale, Criticisms, & The Politics Of The Le Pen Verdict"},"content":{"rendered":"

“The Tyranny Of Red Judges”: The Rationale, Criticisms, & The Politics Of The Le Pen Verdict<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Authored by Etienne Fauchaire via The Epoch Times,<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

A verdict by the Paris Criminal Court on March 31 drew strong reactions across the French political arena. <\/strong>Marine Le Pen, a prominent figure on the nationalist right and a three-time presidential contender, was convicted in a long-running case involving her party\u2019s use of European Parliament funds to pay assistants. The ruling<\/a> bars her from running in the 2027 presidential election.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

For the first time since 1981, the Le Pen name could be absent from the ballot entirely.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Paris court\u2019s verdict against Marine Le Pen reverberated beyond France\u2019s borders, drawing international criticism from prominent conservative leaders, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orb\u00e1n, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and U.S. President Donald Trump.<\/p>\n

Trump, writing on his social media platform Truth Social, offered his unequivocal support on April 4.<\/p>\n

\u201cFree Marine Le Pen!\u201d he wrote in all caps.<\/strong><\/p>\n

At the center of the case is the use of European Parliament funds to pay staff who worked simultaneously for Rassemblement National (RN), or National Rally, members of the European Parliament, and for the party itself. The court called it embezzlement, although it acknowledged there was no personal enrichment.<\/p>\n

Le Pen and 21 co-defendants were convicted by the trial court. She was sentenced to four years in prison\u2014two of them suspended\u2014to be served outside of jail under electronic monitoring, along with a five-year ban from holding public office, effective immediately.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Le Pen denounced the ruling as politically motivated.<\/p>\n

On the French television network TF1 on the same evening, she said<\/a>, \u201cThe rule of law has been completely violated.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

The next day, she went further, calling the decision \u201ca nuclear bomb\u201d designed to wipe her candidacy off the map.<\/p>\n

Jordan Bardella, president of the National Rally, denounced what he called the \u201ctyranny of red judges.\u201d<\/strong> Both Bardella and Le Pen say the case involves no embezzlement but rather an \u201cadministrative disagreement.\u201d<\/p>\n

The court rejected that defense<\/a>, stating \u201cthis was not a matter of administrative errors or a misunderstanding by the Members of Parliament of confusing European rules.\u201d<\/p>\n

National Rally First Vice President Louis Aliot and former party treasurer Wallerand de Saint-Just, both co-defendants, said they stand by their defense of Le Pen.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis isn\u2019t embezzlement; it\u2019s an administrative dispute,\u201d<\/strong><\/em> Aliot told The Epoch Times. \u201cHad the European Parliament clearly told us, \u2018You can\u2019t do this,\u2019 we would obviously have acted differently.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Aliot said that the rules governing parliamentary assistants had changed repeatedly over eight legislative terms, blurring the line between party activities and parliamentary duties.<\/p>\n

\u201cAll the other political parties have done the same thing over the past decades,\u201d <\/strong><\/em>he added. \u201cThe court should have taken that into account. It did not.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The judges, for their part, rejected any suggestion of good faith. In their ruling, they concluded that the National Rally had engaged in \u201cembezzlement within a system set up to reduce the party\u2019s financial burden.\u201d The defendants appealed this verdict.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Participants stand in front of posters during a gathering in support of President of Rassemblement National parliamentary group Marine Le Pen, after she was convicted of a fake jobs scheme at the EU Parliament, in Marseille on April 5, 2025. Clement Mahoudeau\/AFP via Getty Images<\/em><\/p>\n

Bayrou \u2018Troubled\u2019<\/h2>\n

Beyond the merits of the case itself, the most contentious issue in France centers on the court\u2019s decision to enforce Le Pen\u2019s immediate ineligibility for public office through a measure known as ex\u00e9cution provisoire (provisional enforcement). The ruling, which bars her from running in the 2027 presidential election before the appeals process is complete, is viewed, particularly on the right, as politically motivated.<\/p>\n

Across the French right, political figures from \u00c9ric Zemmour<\/a> (Reconqu\u00eate) and \u00c9ric Ciotti<\/a> (UDR) to Laurent Wauquiez<\/a> (Les R\u00e9publicains) voiced strong indignation at the decision to apply the sentence provisionally.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cIt is not up to judges to decide who the people should vote for,\u201d Zemmour said in a March 31 social media post. \u201cI regret that politicians have handed such excessive power to the judiciary. Everything will have to be changed.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

On the presidential side, French Prime Minister Fran\u00e7ois Bayrou voiced his unease<\/a>, saying he was \u201ctroubled\u201d by the court\u2019s decision. Bayrou and his party, the Democratic Movement (MoDem), are implicated in a similar case. On Feb. 5, the Paris court acquitted the MoDem president, citing a \u201clack of evidence.\u201d The prosecution has since appealed the ruling.<\/p>\n

The leader of the far-left party France Unbowed, Jean-Luc M\u00e9lenchon, is also under investigation for the alleged misuse of EU parliamentary assistant funds.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bayrou\u2019s concerns were not echoed within French President Emmanuel Macron\u2019s political camp.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen an elected official is convicted of embezzling public funds, ineligibility is automatic. It\u2019s the law. When there is a risk of reoffending (which is the case when the defendant denies having committed the offense), provisional enforcement is ordered. It\u2019s the law,\u201d lawmaker Sacha Houli\u00e9 wrote on X.<\/em><\/p>\n

Bayrou\u2019s remarks were also harshly criticized by Socialist Party leader Olivier Faure, who said<\/a> he was \u201ctroubled by the prime minister\u2019s disturbance,\u201d lamenting that \u201crespect for the law, the rule of law, and the separation of powers are no longer on the government\u2019s agenda.\u201d<\/p>\n

This view was echoed by legal scholar Paul Cassia, a professor of law and president of French anti-corruption association Anticor. In an op-ed<\/a> for Le Monde, he argued the court justified the \u201cproportionate nature\u201d of its decision. He also said that a presidential candidacy \u201ccannot, in itself, constitute a privilege or a totem of immunity … except by disregarding the principle of equal treatment under the law.\u201d<\/p>\n

Some legal experts dispute that interpretation.<\/strong> They argue that the court\u2019s decision violates the presumption of innocence, enshrined in Article 9 of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Under French law, civil rights are not typically revoked until all appeals have been exhausted. Le Pen, they note, remains the leading contender in the 2027 presidential polls, making the immediate application of ineligibility particularly consequential and, in their view, disproportionate.<\/p>\n

Critics also point to a perceived double standard.<\/strong>\u00a0They argue that many of those now invoking the principle of equality before the law are the same voices who typically call for the individualization of sentences, a key concept in French criminal law often used to justify rulings perceived, particularly on the right, as lenient in cases involving insecurity and urban violence. This principle requires that sentences be tailored to the offender\u2019s individual circumstances rather than applied mechanically.<\/p>\n

To justify the accelerated enforcement of Le Pen\u2019s ineligibility, the court invoked the spirit of the Sapin II law, passed in December 2016, which mandates automatic ineligibility for those convicted of misusing public funds. The events in question occurred between 2004 and early 2016, before the law was enacted. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Since judges could not legally rely on the Sapin II law itself, they instead based their decision on preexisting French legislation, which allows for ineligibility in such cases when justified. To support the provisional enforcement, the court cited two controversial arguments.<\/p>\n

\u2018Risk of Recidivism\u2019 Argument<\/h2>\n

The first justification offered by the court for the provisional enforcement of Le Pen\u2019s ineligibility was the defendants\u2019 \u201csystem of defense,\u201d which it interpreted as evidence of a potential \u201crisk of recidivism.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

In other words, Le Pen\u2019s refusal to admit guilt and her decision to contest the charges were taken as signs that she might reoffend.<\/p>\n

\u201cSince they have completely refused to acknowledge any guilt … it is entirely legitimate to consider that they could very well reoffend, especially if they were to hold the highest offices in the country tomorrow,\u201d <\/strong><\/em>Julien Boudon, professor of Public Law at Paris-Saclay University, told<\/a> Le Monde.<\/p>\n

Critics disagree. <\/strong>Speaking to The Epoch Times, legal scholar Ghislain Benhessa, who teaches at the University of Strasbourg, noted the court treated the National Rally\u2019s opposition to the European Union, and in particular to the values of the rule of law promoted by the EU, as an aggravating factor.<\/p>\n

\u201cBut Marine Le Pen has a constitutional right to defend herself and contest the charges,\u201d he said. \u201cYou cannot, on the one hand, accuse the National Rally of undermining the rule of law, and on the other, criticize it for exercising its legal right to mount a defense.\u201d<\/p>\n

French lawyer Pierre Gentillet, known for his conservative views, said the court\u2019s reasoning was \u201cabsurd.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThe judges based their decision on intent rather than on materiality. And even if we consider intent, it was inferred simply because Marine Le Pen denied committing a crime,\u201d Gentillet said. \u201cAt the time, she had no awareness that the actions taken under her authority might be illegal. And if we\u2019re talking about the material risk of reoffending, how? She is no longer an MEP, nor is she the president of the National Rally.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Risk to \u2018Public Democratic Order\u2019 Argument<\/h2>\n

Second, to argue that their decision was proportionate, the judges introduced what some describe as a novel\u2014and legally questionable\u2014concept: \u201cpublic democratic order.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

According to the ruling, the candidacy, or eventual election, of Marine Le Pen to the presidency would constitute a \u201cmajor disruption to democratic public order,\u201d given that she has \u201calready been convicted at first instance, notably to an additional penalty of ineligibility,\u201d and \u201ccould later be definitively convicted.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

An attendee wearing a red Phrygian cap holds French national flags in front of the golden dome of Les Invalides, ahead of a rally in support of the president of Rassemblement National parliamentary group Marine Le Pen, in Paris on April 6, 2025. Julien de Rosa\/AFP<\/em><\/p>\n

Critics note that this concept has no legal foundation in French law.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe court pulled it out of thin air,\u201d <\/strong>Benhessa said. \u201cAnd it is not the role of a trial court to invent new jurisprudential doctrines. That responsibility lies solely with the supreme courts\u2014the Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat and the court of Cassation\u2014who alone have the authority to shape jurisprudence in accordance with legal doctrine and the specific nature of a case.\u201d<\/p>\n

Former Constitutional Council member No\u00eblle Lenoir echoed the criticism in an op-ed<\/a> for Le Figaro, stating unequivocally that \u201cpublic democratic order\u201d is an \u201cunknown notion in the penal code\u201d and that these judges did not base their decisions on the law.<\/p>\n

Violation of Voter Freedom?<\/h2>\n

Just three days before the verdict, on March 28, the French Constitutional Council issued a ruling<\/a> stating that ineligibility may only be applied immediately if it does not disproportionately infringe upon voters\u2019 freedom.<\/strong><\/p>\n

While some legal scholars argue that the trial court has complied with that standard, by invoking the risk of recidivism and the concept of \u201cpublic democratic order\u201d to justify the proportionality of provisional enforcement, others strongly disagree.<\/p>\n

In an op-ed<\/a> for Marianne, Jean-\u00c9ric Schoettl, former secretary general of the Constitutional Council, accused the judges of openly defying the council\u2019s guidance.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey have rebelled against the Constitutional Council, and against the voters,\u201d<\/strong><\/em> he wrote. \u201cThe provisional enforcement of Marine Le Pen\u2019s ineligibility clearly has disproportionate consequences on the freedom of the voter, as it deprives millions of citizens of their natural candidate in the country\u2019s most important election.\u201d<\/p>\n

Criminal lawyer Maxime Thi\u00e9baut echoed that warning, calling the court\u2019s move a serious breach of legal norms.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe judges have tainted their ruling with illegality,\u201d<\/strong><\/em> he told The Epoch Times. \u201cIt amounts to interference in the democratic process. What legitimacy does a first-instance court have to declare that someone is unfit to run for president?\u201d<\/p>\n

Judicial Bias Alleged<\/h2>\n

In their interviews with The Epoch Times, both Aliot and de Saint-Just also alleged that the judiciary\u2014prosecutors, investigating judges, and the bench\u2014had demonstrated political bias.<\/p>\n

For instance, they pointed out that investigating judges Claire Th\u00e9paut and Renaud Van Ruymbeke are both affiliated with the Syndicat de la Magistrature (Union of the Magistracy), a judges\u2019 union that has openly called on magistrates to oppose the RN\u2019s rise in the lead-up to the 2024 legislative elections.<\/p>\n

The Syndicat de la Magistrature responded to criticism of the Paris Court\u2019s decision, arguing that claims of \u201cpoliticized justice\u201d are \u201cbased on assumptions that verge on conspiracy theories.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

The impartiality of Judge B\u00e9n\u00e9dicte de Perthuis, who delivered the verdict, has also been questioned.<\/p>\n

Fueling further controversy, it emerged this week that Judge de Perthuis had cited Green politician and former magistrate Eva Joly as a personal source of inspiration in 2020.<\/p>\n

R\u00e9my Heitz, prosecutor general at the French Court of Cassation, took issue<\/a> on RTL, a commercial radio station, with that line of criticism, saying this decision is the result of a \u201cfair trial\u201d and that it was handed down not by one but by \u201ca panel of three independent, impartial judges.\u201d<\/p>\n

Race Against the Clock<\/h2>\n

On April 1, the Paris Court of Appeal announced it would fast-track its review of Le Pen\u2019s case.<\/p>\n

Ordinarily, appeals of this nature take between 18 and 24 months, meaning the timeline would likely have excluded Le Pen from the 2027 presidential race. In an unusual step, the court has announced its intention to deliver a ruling by the summer of 2026.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Benhessa acknowledged the exceptional nature of the move.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is highly unusual,\u201d <\/strong>he said. \u201cGiven the media storm surrounding the first-instance ruling, I believe the Court of Appeal is trying to put the fire out. What\u2019s striking is that they\u2019re not just scheduling a hearing: they\u2019re committing to a deadline.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

The main facade of the Paris courthouse (Palais de Justice), which houses the Paris Court of Appeal in Paris, France, on March 2, 2025. Milani\/Hans Lucas via AFP\/Getty Images<\/em><\/p>\n

The Paris Court of Appeal declined to make any public comments on the decision.<\/p>\n

Within the Rassemblement National, the announcement is seen as a tacit admission that the initial ruling was excessive.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is very good news, and I take it as a sign of the unrest the ruling has provoked,\u201d<\/strong> Le Pen said.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThis shows that it\u2019s actually the lower court\u2019s decision that creates a disturbance to public order. The Court of Appeal has never done this for anyone,\u201d Aliot told The Epoch Times.<\/em><\/p>\n

The accelerated timetable should not be interpreted as a \u201cdisavowal\u201d of the lower court\u2019s verdict, Paris Chief Prosecutor Marie-Suzanne Le Qu\u00e9au told Agence France-Presse.<\/p>\n

Beyond France\u2019s borders, the appeal will be closely watched, especially by conservatives and by the Trump administration, who are concerned that lawfare is rising in Europe and free speech is waning.<\/p>\n

In Trump\u2019s lengthy post, the president compared Le Pen\u2019s situation to his legal battles.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe witch hunt against Marine Le Pen is another example of European leftists using lawfare to silence free speech and censor their political opponents. … It\u2019s the same playbook they used against me,\u201d <\/strong>he wrote.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t know Marine Le Pen, but do appreciate how hard she worked for so many years. She suffered losses, but kept on going, and now, just before what would be a Big Victory, they get her on a minor charge that she probably knew nothing about\u2014Sounds like a \u2018bookkeeping\u2019 error to me. It is all so bad for France, and the Great French People, no matter what side they are on.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who in a speech in Munich last February warned of a \u201cretreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America,\u201d also came to Le Pen\u2019s defense.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Europeans, they are absolutely, 100 percent our friends,\u201d Vance told Newsmax on April 3. \u201cBut that relationship is going to be strained, and it\u2019s going to be tested, if they keep trying to throw opposition leaders in jail.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Tyler Durden<\/a><\/span>
\nWed, 04\/09\/2025 – 03:30<\/span><\/p>\n

\u200bhttps:\/\/www.zerohedge.com\/geopolitical\/tyranny-red-judges-rationale-criticisms-politics-le-pen-verdict<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The Tyranny Of Red Judges”: The Rationale, Criticisms, & The Politics Of The Le Pen Verdict Authored by Etienne Fauchaire via The Epoch Times, A…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":1529349,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1529348","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","wpcat-1-id"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pbimBl-6pQU","jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/04\/image20284029_6-JkFhY7.jpeg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1529348","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1529348"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1529348\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1529349"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1529348"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1529348"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1529348"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}