Listen to the article
Le Pen’s Presidential Ban Appeal: Separating Fact from Fiction
Misleading posts circulating on X claim that French far-right leader Marine Le Pen’s appeal against a conviction barring her from running in the 2027 presidential election has been rejected. These posts, some garnering over 600,000 views, assert that “French people are outraged” and that the “EU is behind” the supposed rejection.
The reality is more complex and nuanced than social media posts suggest.
In March, Judge Bénédicte de Perthuis found Le Pen “at the heart” of a scheme to embezzle European parliamentary funds and sentenced her to a five-year ban from public office, effective immediately. The Paris Criminal Court also imposed a four-year prison sentence—two years suspended and two to be served with an electronic bracelet—plus a €100,000 fine. Le Pen denounced the verdict as a “political witch-hunt” and vowed to fight it through all available legal channels.
To expedite overturning her presidential ban, Le Pen launched challenges along two separate legal tracks: administrative and criminal. The social media posts appear to conflate these distinct processes.
On October 15, France’s highest administrative court, the Council of State, rejected a legal challenge Le Pen had filed against the country’s electoral rules. This administrative challenge specifically concerned her removal from the electoral list in Pas-de-Calais department, where she serves as an MP.
“Since she’s hit a wall in the criminal courts, Le Pen tried a side route: taking her case to the administrative courts,” explained Camille Aynès, constitutional law expert at the University of Paris Nanterre. “The real goal was strategic—to create a case that would allow her to raise a ‘priority question of constitutionality’ (QPC).”
This mechanism would have allowed Le Pen to question whether the law applied in her case violates the French Constitution. However, the Council of State refused to advance her challenge, ruling that the criminal provisions Le Pen contested were either non-existent or unrelated to the administrative matter at hand.
The main consequence of this rejection is that Le Pen lost an opportunity for expedited review of her situation. This timeline is particularly significant amid France’s political uncertainty—if President Emmanuel Macron were to call snap presidential elections, they could occur before Le Pen’s criminal appeal is decided, potentially leaving her ineligible regardless of the eventual outcome.
Contrary to social media claims, Le Pen’s primary appeal against her criminal conviction remains pending. A trial has been scheduled from January 13 to February 12, 2025, with a verdict expected before summer. This timing would still allow Le Pen to contest the 2027 presidential election if her sentence is overturned or reduced.
In July, Le Pen also sought an interim measure from the European Court of Human Rights to suspend the immediate application of her five-year ban. This request was denied.
“At this point, only the criminal appeal can change things,” Aynès noted. “If her verdict is upheld, she can then turn to the Court of Cassation,” France’s supreme court for civil and criminal matters.
Claims that the “EU is behind” Le Pen’s ban are also unfounded. The case and conviction fall entirely under French judicial authority. The allegations stem from when Le Pen was a Member of the European Parliament, with prosecutors alleging that between 2004 and 2016, she and several party members diverted funds intended for parliamentary assistants to finance party activities in France.
According to Aynès, the European Parliament’s only involvement was as whistleblower: “That’s the only sense in which the EU can be said to have been ‘involved’—it alerted prosecutors.”
Despite her legal challenges, Le Pen and her National Rally (RN) party remain popular in France. Recent polling places her and RN president Jordan Bardella between 33-37% support, ahead of their political rivals. At the time of her conviction, an Ifop Opinion poll had placed Le Pen at 37% support.
While some speculate that the 30-year-old Bardella might become the party’s presidential candidate with Le Pen’s backing, RN has not officially confirmed this possibility.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.


12 Comments
Interesting to see the legal intricacies behind Le Pen’s bid to overturn her presidential ban. The court’s decision to uphold the ban for now underscores the gravity of the allegations against her.
Agreed, the legal process appears to be unfolding methodically, despite the political sensitivities involved. It will be important to follow the case closely for updates.
The rejection of Le Pen’s appeal is a significant development, but the legal battle is far from over. It will be interesting to see how her other challenges progress and how the situation unfolds.
You’re right, this is just one step in a longer legal process. It will be important to follow the case closely and not jump to conclusions based on partial information or emotional reactions on social media.
This case highlights the importance of verifying information, especially around high-profile political figures. The social media narratives don’t seem to fully capture the nuances of the legal proceedings.
Absolutely, nuance and context are crucial when it comes to reporting on complex legal and political matters. Oversimplification can lead to the spread of misinformation.
While Le Pen’s legal battles continue, it’s important to separate fact from fiction when it comes to the details of her presidential ban appeal. The situation seems more complex than simplistic social media posts suggest.
You’re right, the legal proceedings around this case are nuanced and shouldn’t be oversimplified. It will be interesting to see how the different challenges play out.
The rejection of Le Pen’s appeal against the presidential ban is a significant development, though the legal battle is far from over. It will be interesting to see how her other challenges progress.
You make a good point. The case is still unfolding, and it’s important to follow the different legal tracks Le Pen is pursuing to get a full understanding of the situation.
While the social media posts may reflect a certain level of public sentiment, it’s clear that the reality behind Le Pen’s presidential ban appeal is more nuanced. Fact-checking is crucial in these types of cases.
Agreed. Emotional reactions on social media don’t always capture the full complexity of legal and political processes. Maintaining a critical eye is important when evaluating these types of stories.