Court cases involving politicians are invariably controversial, not least in India, which has witnessed several egregious judgments, especially in the lower courts. Now two court verdicts in the European Union (EU) have caused considerable concern. The cases barred two potential presidential winners, both from the ultra-right, from contesting elections.
The Romanian outsider
Pro-Russian nationalist Calin Georgescu, a rank political outsider, won the first round of Romania’s presidential vote in November 2024, which the country’s constitutional court annulled for fraudulent use of digital technology and undeclared campaign financing. The final voting will take place in May without Georgescu’s participation.
As allegations of Russian interference surfaced after the first round of voting was annulled, Georgescu was ousted from the new elections, with the Election Commission confirming that it had rejected his candidacy. His appeal to the European Court of Human Rights against the annulment was also rejected.
Sixty-two-year-old Georgescu called it “a direct blow to the heart of world democracy” on X, and said that “Europe is a dictatorship, Romania is under tyranny.” From December 2024 to March 2025, pro-Georgescu anti-government protests escalated in scale and intensity, with rallies organised by the far-right Alliance for the Unity of Romanians (AUR) led by George Simion.
Simion is vice chair of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) Party, led until recently by Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. Meanwhile, Italy’s deputy premier Matteo Salvini spoke of a Soviet-style Euro-coup.
Georgescu’s ouster also evoked criticism from the Trump administration in the United States, with Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance condemning the annulment as an example of backsliding in the European democracy. They accused Romania of bowing to pressure from other European capitals and condemned the “censorship” of free speech and political opponents across the EU.
However, a similar ouster sparked an even bigger debate.
Marine Le Pen found guilty
The trial that concluded on March 31 in France is the latest to roil the political landscape in Europe.
Marine Le Pen, the undisputed leader of the far-right National Rally (RN) and Grande Dame of the rapidly growing right-oriented European movement, was found guilty of misuse of EU funds. Prosecutors secured a five-year ban from public office for her when she is the clear leader polling 34-37 percent for the French presidency in 2027.
Le Pen, the RN and some 20 party functionaries were accused of diverting over EUR 3 million to pay staff to work on party business in France who were unconnected with European Parliament matters.
This sum is trivial compared to the vast amounts looted by India’s kleptocrats. Besides, some of it was refunded by the RN, and the judges agreed that Le Pen had personally not appropriated any EU money.
‘My political death’
The judgement has cast a grim shadow on Le Pen’s presidential hopes. The 56-year-old leader accused prosecutors of asking the bench to bar her from office even if she appeals, which she claimed was “completely disproportionate”.
“It’s my political death they are after,” she cried.
She also protested before the judges that “time and time again, your mind was made up, our arguments dismissed… It all made me feel very unsettled.”
Prosecutors Louise Neyton and Nicholas Barret said they sought ‘provisional execution’ against Le Pen and her co-accused due to their repeated efforts to delay the probe lasting nearly a decade.
Typically, in France, sentences for non-serious crimes or those committed by first-time offenders are not applied until the appeals process has taken place, but in this case the ‘provisional execution’ begins immediately.
The judges could have adopted, modified or rejected the prosecutors’ request but they chose not to.
What is ‘provisional execution’?
In 2016, the French parliament passed a law on transparency and fighting corruption, named after Michael Sapin, a one-time finance minister who championed its passing. The law took effect in 2017 and aimed to align France’s policies with European counterparts and correct the perception of impunity for France’s graft-stained political class. The law made ineligibility an automatic punishment for politicians convicted of corruption and a number of convicted politicians have received such bans.
Separately, in a case launched by a disbarred Mayotte councilman, France’s Constitutional Court assessed the legality of ‘provisional execution’ and ruled that politicians could be barred from office immediately if convicted of a crime. In its verdict, the court said that ‘provisional execution’ of an ineligibility sentence did not infringe on rights such as freedom of expression and was therefore legal.
Judicial overreach
It cannot be ascertained how many politicians have been barred from office as French data does not distinguish between elected officials and other professions but prosecutors increasingly demand ‘provisional execution’ ineligibility sentences, with judges complying.
One example is Brigitte Bareges, former mayor of Montauban, convicted of embezzlement in 2021, given a fine, suspended prison sentence and five-year political ban with ‘provisional execution’. She was acquitted on appeal and described her ‘provisional execution’ as a hit-job by a politicised judiciary.
So, Le Pen had good reason to fear “leftist judges [who] overstep objectivity… to eliminate a presidential candidate who could well be elected.”
Judges must strive to achieve a balance between demonstrating that the law is the same for everyone and avoiding accusations of political meddling. However, by passing the 2016 law, French lawmakers have constructed the cross on which they could be crucified; they gave judges the tools to significantly encroach on executive power.
The verdict
In the past, the RN had cleansed its image by shedding anti-Semitic and racist elements, underlining its bona fides. Marine Le Pen, with considerable success, rebranded her party as a respectable political force ready to assume power, by dropping some issues like leaving the eurozone, and excluding racist and extremist undesirables. Allegations of embezzling EU funds had dogged Le Pen for years without impacting her growing domestic political success.
Government prosecutors, while presenting the case against Le Pen and her associates, said they used the EU to pay assistants money for party business within France, instead of on EU-related affairs. The harshest punishment was for Le Pen as former MEP and leader of the party during the years 2004 to 2016.
Prosecutors alleged that RN’s tactics cost taxpayers EUR 4.5 million and there was enough evidence to warrant guilty verdicts against the accused. They recommended handing Le Pen a five-year prison sentence, three of which are suspended, a EUR 300,000 fine and a five-year ban on running for public office which included the presidency. They also requested that her sentence be enforced immediately, even in the event of an appeal.
The three judges were not obliged to follow the prosecution’s recommendations.
If they did, it would mean Le Pen being barred from standing in a presidential election in which she was the potential winner.
Four scenarios were possible; to be acquitted was unlikely. The verdict could convict her but make the ineligibility not automatic so that an appeal could be lodged which would leave her free to run for presidency in 2027, though with the handicap of a conviction for misuse of public money. The conviction would’ve caused little damage, given the series of funding scandals that affected French parties over time and the fact that the RN makes no pretence of respect for the EU and its institutions.
The court could give her a short term of automatic ineligibility – making it possible for her to run for presidency. Or, as has happened, the court followed the prosecutors for automatic ineligibility making her unable to run for 2027 presidential polls.
She also received a four-year prison sentence, two years suspended and two in home detention, and a EUR 100,000 fine – all these will apply when her appeals are exhausted.
Le Pen has called for a swift appeal trial, so that her name could be cleared – or at least, the ineligibility lifted – in time for the 2027 vote. The hearing could be fast-tracked with a verdict by spring 2026 and the decision could lessen the period of ineligibility or remove it altogether. The chances of this happening appear slim, and if the charismatic Le Pen is unable to run in 2027, the RN loses much of its appeal.
Protests
Many French commentators – and by no means, only Le Pen’s supporters – have warned of grave consequences for democracy when the judiciary interferes in the choice of the country’s leader. France’s current Prime Minister Francois Bayrou, justice minister Gerald Darmanin, as well as Leftist leader Jean-Luc Melanchon have all expressed serious reservations at the judgement, in what has been regarded as a huge destabilising political earthquake.
Elon Musk across the Atlantic and right-wing movements throughout Europe have also expressed dissent and concern.
“For her to be convicted for any wrong-doing is perfectly normal, but stopping her from running in the presidential election is another matter entirely,” wrote analyst Franz-Olivier Giesbert. “Is it not hazardous, not to say perilous, to give judges the task of determining whether a candidate has the capacity to run for office?” asked Bruno Jeudi, an editor.
If Le Pen is finally barred from the presidential election, it could lead to a confrontation between the RN, the largest party in parliament, and France’s institutions.
“The risk with this kind of thing is that by constantly attacking the people, one day the people will rise up,” Paul Baudry, former mayor of Bassussarry in southwest France, ominously warned.
Krishnan Srinivasan is a former foreign secretary.
