Credits: Vox España / Wikimedia Commons — CC0 (public domain).
On February 3, 2026 at the Paris Court of Appeal, the public prosecutor requested against Marine Le Pen a marine le pen ineligibility of 5 years… but without provisional enforcement, therefore without immediate effect (in the case of MEP assistants). The public prosecutor also seeks 4 years of imprisonment — 3 years suspended and 1 year custodial adaptable under an electronic bracelet — as well as a fine of €100,000. These requisitions are part of the appeal in the case of the MEP assistants, at the heart of a debate: was European money used to benefit the party?
What The Public Prosecutor Requests — And What That Means
In a room where every word matters, the requisitions set a framework: five years of ineligibility, without immediate application. That is the point that draws attention. Because it changes the mechanics.
An ineligibility sentence can, under law, take effect immediately. That happens if the judge attaches provisional enforcement to it. That’s what happened at first instance. Here, the public prosecutor chose the opposite option: to request a sanction, but let the decision run its course through all appeals.
Alongside the ineligibility, the prosecution requests 4 years in prison, broken down into 3 years suspended and 1 year custodial that can be adapted with an electronic bracelet. A fine of €100,000 is added.
Nothing at this stage is a verdict. Requisitions are not a conviction. They are the position of the public prosecutor. The court can follow them, toughen them, or depart from them.
Ineligibility Without Provisional Enforcement: The Nuance That Could Matter For 2027
The technical detail has obvious political effects, without needing to draw prophecy.
Without provisional enforcement, ineligibility, if pronounced, would apply only once the decision is final. A decision can still be contested after appeal: a cassation appeal (pourvoi en cassation) remains possible. The Court of Cassation does not re-decide the facts; it checks whether the law was correctly applied and whether procedure was respected.
Put another way: an ineligibility without immediate application theoretically leaves some breathing room. That margin depends on the timetable. The appeal ruling is expected before summer 2026 or in summer 2026 depending on reports. If a cassation appeal followed, the procedure could continue beyond the political deadline.
Conversely, if the court decided to attach provisional enforcement to the ineligibility, the effect would be immediate. And this would hold regardless of a cassation appeal. It is one of the case’s keys.
The MEP Assistants Case: What Exactly Are We Talking About?
The file goes back far. The facts at issue cover a period from 2004 to 2016. The prosecution describes a mechanism where parliamentary assistants paid by the European Parliament would have partially worked for the party. They would not have devoted all their time exclusively to the activities of European elected officials.
The heart of the controversy is there. In Brussels and Strasbourg, MEPs have budgets intended to pay staff. Justice is questioning the boundary: when does assistance to an elected official become partisan work? This raises the issue of irregular use of European public funds.
The prosecution argues for the existence of an organized and lasting scheme. The defense contests the idea of a centralized system and disputes the criminal qualification of the practices. It emphasizes the reality of political missions in a broad sense.
Court Of Appeal: Key Timeline In The Le Pen Case
To understand the stake, dates must be set. They form a corridor.
- March 31, 2025: first-instance judgment, with a 5-year ineligibility sentence coupled with immediate enforcement, and complementary penalties (prison and fine) recalled by several reports.
- September 8, 2025: the Court of Appeal sets the schedule for the appeal trial.
- January 13 – February 12, 2026: appeal hearings in Paris.
- February 3, 2026: requisitions of the public prosecutor (some reports place them on February 4, 2026).
- Summer 2026: ruling expected.
This timeline is not incidental. It places the appeal judgment about a year before the presidential election scheduled in 2027. Justice follows its own pace, but the political rhythm never slows.
A Defense Strategy Under Constraint
On appeal, each side adjusts its step. The hearings are not a simple replay. Lines move, sometimes quietly.
On one side, the prosecution highlights the seriousness of an attack on the finances of a European institution. It also stresses the duration of the alleged facts. On the other, the defense strives to reduce the criminal scope of the practices. It also contests the idea of a fraudulent scheme. It seeks to show that the actions were not intentionally deceitful or illegal.
The most visible difference is also found outside the file: the caution in words. Communication tightens. The smallest phrase can become evidence in the parallel trial — that of public opinion.
The public prosecutor chose not to request provisional enforcement, according to some close to the case. Thus, this is interpreted as a desire to let the procedure follow its normal course. Moreover, this decision aims to avoid an institutional debate disrupting the substantive examination. According to the public explanations of the prosecutor, the question of the risk of recurrence would be evaluated differently. In addition, the public order disturbance is also assessed differently because of the age of the facts.
The Prosecutor, The Judges, And The Line Between Justice And Politics
In such cases, the judicial institution is observed with a magnifying glass. One word too many, and distrust inflames.
On the prosecutor’s side, two ideas often resurface in public debates: first, magistrates judge facts and texts, not political destinies. Second, the appeals system is a safeguard: it ensures that the decision is not the expression of a moment, but the result of an adversarial path.
That does not extinguish the tension. An ineligibility sentence touches the democratic architecture: it prevents a candidate from running and deprives voters of a choice. That is precisely why it is framed, justified, and debated.
In this case, the Court of Appeal will have to decide on a double knot: the qualification of the facts and the proportionality of the sanction. The court does not have to spare the political calendar. It has to rule on the law.
The RN Facing Its Two Horizons: The Court And The Election
For the Rassemblement national, the equation has two unknowns. The first is legal: the appeal ruling, then possibly cassation. The second is political: leadership for 2027.
The party must hold two positions at once. Assert the presumption of innocence and contest the case. However, it must avoid creating the impression of a showdown with the judiciary. Prepare for the future without publicly organizing a handover.
This dilemma is visible in behavior. Statements are rare. Talking points resemble each other. And a phrase reappears, repeated like a running log: “requisitions are not a decision.”
Bardella, Maréchal: The Hypothesis Of A ‘Plan B’ Without Forecast
At each stage, the same question returns: what happens if Marine Le Pen cannot be a candidate in 2027?
Within the party, one name imposes itself in political conversations: Jordan Bardella, president of the RN. He is regularly cited as an internal option if a judicial impediment were to occur. Other figures exist, but the RN, for years, has built a two-headed architecture: the heir and the successor.
This hypothesis remains conditional. It would depend on the nature of the appeal ruling, the existence or not of provisional enforcement, and the timeline of appeals. It would also depend on a political choice, because no procedure replaces a party decision.
What The Court Could Decide In Summer 2026
The appeal ruling can take several paths.
- Acquit totally or partially, if the court considers that the constituent elements are not met.
- Confirm the guilt found at first instance, adjusting the penalty: duration of ineligibility, length of prison, amount of the fine, adaptations.
- Harden or lighten the sanctions, including on a decisive point: the provisional enforcement.
If the court follows the requisitions, the ineligibility would be pronounced without immediate effect. In that case, a cassation appeal could delay when the sentence becomes final. But if the court chooses provisional enforcement, the ineligibility would apply upon pronouncement.
These scenarios are not bets. They are the possible branches of a procedure.
A Case About Public Funds, A Case About Trust
Beyond the names, the case questions a simple principle: the use of public money. Here, it concerns European funds. Their destination is precise. Justice must say whether it was respected.
It is also a matter of democratic trust. When an elected official is accused, public opinion quickly suspects a political trial. When a party denounces the judges, public opinion quickly suspects evasion. The procedure, for its part, moves forward in the middle, with its rules, deadlines, and safeguards.
By summer, the pleadings and final hearings will close the chapter of the adversarial debate. Then will come deliberation time.
One certainty, for now: on February 3, 2026, the public prosecutor made its requests. And the Court of Appeal alone will write what comes next.