PARIS (AP) 鈥� A Paris appeals court set a verdict date of July 7 for Marine Le Pen in her European Union misuse of funds case, a crucial decision that could derail the far-right leader鈥檚 presidential bid.
The trial ended Wednesday with one question looming above all others 鈥� whether Le Pen will next year.
Le Pen, 57, is challenging a March 2025 verdict that found her and other members of her National Rally party guilty of misusing European Parliament funds in the hiring of aides from 2004 to 2016.
She denies accusations that she was at the center of a fraudulent system meant to siphon off EU funds.
Asked by the court whether she’d like to say anything in conclusion, Le Pen declined to speak. She quickly left the courthouse without stopping in front of a crowd of reporters.
Here’s why the outcome of the five-week trial may change the course of France鈥檚 2027 presidential election.
Presidential ambitions
Le Pen was widely seen as a top contender to succeed centrist President Emmanuel Macron in the 2027 election until a Paris court banned her from holding office over charges of misusing public money.
She was twice a contender in the runoff against Macron in 2017 and 2022, and her party has been coming out on top in opinion polls in recent years.
The appeal trial is a second chance to win an acquittal that would clear her path to the presidential race.
If convicted, Le Pen could be sentenced to a ban on holding elected office. In that case, she has said, her 30-year-old protege Jordan Bardella would run instead.
Bardella’s popularity has surged in recent years, but some observers have pointed to his relative lack of experience, especially with international and economic affairs, as a potential weakness for a presidential bid.
Le Pen’s lawyer, Rodolphe Bosselut, told the three-judge panel his client 鈥渋s entrusting you with the work of her life, and the question is thus whether it will end here or whether it can be rebuilt.鈥�
Diverting EU funds
Le Pen is joined in her appeal by 10 other officials who were convicted last year, as well as the party itself.
They’re seeking to overturn convictions for misusing funding meant for European Parliament aides between 2004 and 2016, while Le Pen was serving as a member of the EU legislature.
Prosecutors say that she organized the hiring of several people as EU parliamentary aides, but made them work for her party instead. The investigation showed some of the people had no contact with members of the European Parliament, and one acted as Le Pen’s bodyguard, in alleged violation of parliamentary rules.
A second chance
In March 2025, a Paris court ruled that Le Pen was at the heart of 鈥渁 fraudulent system鈥� that her party used to siphon off European Parliament funds worth 2.9 million euros ($3.4 million). She was given a and two years of house arrest with an electronic bracelet.
Le Pen denounced a 鈥渄emocratic scandal,鈥� while anti-corruption campaigners argued that her conviction was proof that no one is above the law.
House arrest sentences are on hold until the appeal is resolved.
The earlier verdict isn鈥檛 expected to influence the July 7 decision, because the appeal trial examines the case from scratch. In France, criminal defendants have the right to ask a higher court to rehear their case after conviction.
It鈥檚 common for judges to give a verdict weeks or months after a trial ends. Former President , for example, ended in April 2025 and the court issued its ruling in late September.
鈥榃e have never concealed anything鈥�
During the appeal trial, Le Pen acknowledged some employees paid as EU parliamentary aides , then known as the National Front, but insisted that she believed such work was allowed and never attempted to hide it.
鈥淭he mistake lies here: there were certainly some aides, on a case-by-case basis, who must have worked either marginally, more substantially, or entirely 鈥� for the benefit of the party. And voil脿,鈥� Le Pen told the court.
She also reproached European Parliament officials for not warning her party, at the time, that the way it was hiring people was potentially against any rules.
鈥淲e have never concealed anything,鈥� she said.
The party鈥檚 lawyer said Wednesday that there was a 鈥済ray area鈥� regarding the rules that should benefit the defendants.
鈥淭here have been perhaps some administrative shortcomings, perhaps carelessness, hastiness,鈥� but overall party officials acted in good faith, David Dassa-Le Deist said.
Prosecutors say funds deliberately misappropriated
Prosecutors argued the financing of employees by EU money was unfair to other domestic political parties and that Le Pen, a lawyer by training, couldn’t have failed to notice the discrepancy between aides鈥� actual jobs and the contracts they signed.
One prosecutor, St茅phane Madoz-Blanchet, pointed to 鈥減ublic money siphoned off drop by drop until it formed a river.鈥� He denounced 鈥渁 system鈥� led by Le Pen.
鈥淭he acts of misappropriation of public funds were deliberately and carefully concealed,鈥� he said.
Thierry Ramonatxo, another prosecutor, said the alleged misappropriation of public funds represents 鈥渁 very serious breach of probity鈥� that gave the party 鈥渁 concrete advantage in the form of substantial savings made at the expense of the European Parliament.鈥�
They have asked the court to ban Le Pen from holding elected office for five years and to sentence her to one year under house arrest with an electronic tag.
Copyright © 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.
