In highlight, law is a precious resource. As long as we take care of it. And that we never leave him. The criminal court found guilty Marine Le Pen and eight MEPs of embezzlement of public funds. All were sentenced to a complementary sentence of ineligibility. Without the law which must impose its pronouncement being applicable. Including act. Democracy wins when evidence of probity is punished. A call is underway. He will be alone in providing a final decision.
The stake, the only one in immediate range, distinct from the main debate, was the provisional execution of the sentence. She was pronounced. It was in advance without impact on the deputy mandate of Ms. Le Pen. It has only one effect, perfectly understood by all: the impossibility of presenting itself to the presidential election.
Such an end can only be based on a rigorous justification. And strict legal nature is understood. What does the law say? The law in question was interpreted by the Court of Cassation. She declared herself twice, in 2018 and 2022, and judged that provisional execution must respond to “a general interest objective aimed at promoting the execution of the sentence and preventing recurrence”. To this is added, overhanging, a constraint of constitutional rank, prescribed by the reserve stated by the Constitutional Council in its decision of March 28. It poses a general framework of interpretation, a condition of its compliance with the Constitution: do not apply the provisionally execution of an ineligibility sentence. The judge thus has the obligation to take into account the involvement which will result in the preservation of the freedom of the voter.
The only question, perfectly marked, was therefore to determine whether the provisional execution of the ineligibility sentence was, in this case, proportionate. This is precisely the role of the criminal court in its mission to apply the law. Appreciate In Concreto If this deserves this. To determine whether the immediate deprivation of the right of eligibility, in the context, is not excessive. He judged that it was not. We are entitled today to wonder if there can be a situation that can be. Is there a more characteristic, by its nature as by its effects, of this disproportion that law expressly requires to rule out?
The court retains the risk of recurrence
No one, absolutely no one, had considered that Ms. Le Pen’s recurrence could only be likely. A whole bundle of elements seemed to be enough to dismiss it. At the forefront, the fact that the interested party is no longer elected to the European Parliament, nor president of the targeted party, that the last alleged facts date back to 2016 and especially that the party’s financial resources – due in particular to the number of its deputies – are today incomparable with those of the time, precisely the mobile of sanctioned diversion.
However, against all odds, the criminal court retains the risk of recurrence. It is characterized, indicates the court, by the “defense system”. What do we blame him? To “tend to challenge the material jurisdiction of the court as much as the facts, in a narrative conception of the truth”. To manifest “no desire to participate in the manifestation of the truth”. The risk of recurrence is even associated with the lack of recognition of the facts, in the developed means of “injusticiability”, where there is a challenge for qualification. In short, to be a bad litigant. To defend yourself and, to approve or deplore it, to have a strategy for this, among the most fundamental. Worse, to expect to use his right to recourse while the latter “is not a right acquired to the slowness of justice”, a proper expression which admits to weigh the effects of this slowness on the litigant. It is the rule of law against itself.
The excitement led the court-a simple judge of the first instance let us remember-to convene Ex nihilo A new notion, nonexistent in our case law, even that of the Constitutional Council: “Democratic public order.” The kind of notion that has the merit of bringing almost everyone until it is pretended to define it. A “troubled potential” would be generated by “the fact that Mrs. Le Pen is a candidate […] While it is condemned for the embezzlement of public funds to an ineligibility sentence at first instance and could then be definitively being so “. The reasoning is circular: the sentence of ineligibility would lose its meaning in the event of suspension, which amounts to denying any possibility of provisional non -performance. Contrary to provisional execution, no possible appeal. The damage is irremediable.
At this moment of tension, with unmatched intensity, between justice and democracy, let us recall a benchmark. The rule of law is also the protection of democracy. That of freedom of suffrage and the right of eligibility. That of pluralism of political life that our constitution situates to the foundation of democracy.
.