The provisional execution of an ineligibility sentence in question. The Constitutional Council will render this Friday, March 28, its answer to a priority question of constitutionality (QPC) on Friday, March 28 on this point. The question concerns the very specific case of a municipal councilor of a municipality of Mayotte, sentenced in June 2024 to an ineligibility sentence with provisional execution. This man, who appealed, was still considered resigning by the prefect of the archipelago in the aftermath of his sentence. The elected official disputes the “irremediable character” of this approach, while his sentence is not yet final. An argument that could be grasped if necessary … Marine Le Pen.
The president of the RN group in the National Assembly is waiting to know on March 31 if she will be sentenced or not in the case of MEPs of the National Front. During the trial, the prosecution had requested five years in prison against it (including two suspended), but also five years of ineligibility, accompanied by a provisional execution. Concretely, if the judges follow the recommendation of the prosecution, Marine Le Pen could not therefore appear in the 2027 presidential election, for which she does not hide her ambitions today. “It is my political death that is claimed,” she castigated on TF1, after the announcement of the requisitions.
Not the same laws
Three days before the decision of the Paris Criminal Court, the response of the Constitutional Council on the provisional execution of ineligibility could therefore naturally interest the Marine Le Pen camp. What can she expect? To tell the truth, not much. The question decided by the wise men on the case of the elected Mahorais refers to articles L230 and L236 of the electoral code. It was on these provisions that the prefect based to declare the resigning city councilor. The Constitutional Council is therefore only questioned about this specific case at the local level, and not on the question of the immediate execution of an ineligibility sentence as such, this falling under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
However, the argument of the Constitutional Council could still be a little more supported and generally return to the principle of provisional execution. This is in any case what Marine Le Pen could wish and her lawyers. An opinion in the direction of the primacy of the freedom of the choice of voters on the need for immediacy of the ineligibility sentence of an elected official could be very useful for the defense of the deputy of Pas-de-Calais. Because, without these extended explanations, difficult for Marine Le Pen to imagine that this decision of the Constitutional Council can have a legal consequence on its judgment in the case of MEPs of the FN.
In any case, from a political point of view, a conclusion of the wise men who would be favorable to the elected Mahorais could still be beneficial to him. “The concomitance of the two decisions helps to blur things and increase pressure on the magistrates,” explained mid-March to Public Senate Public law professor Mathieu Carpentier “The criminal court could very well decide not to match a possible conviction of a provisional execution.” And so, in this case, give a stay to Marine Le Pen to strengthen her defense for a probable appeal trial …
Nonexistent jurisprudence on the issue of presidential elections
Until today, the Constitutional Council has always refused to drop parliamentarians from their function after the non -final condemnation of one of them to an ineligibility sentence accompanied by immediate execution. This thus protects the elected officials who appeal or will appeal to the cassation to contest an ineligibility court decision. Senator Jean-Noël Guérini or the deputy Michel Fanget have in recent years been able to benefit from this rule. Thus, despite a sanction of the same type, Marine Le Pen could, thanks to the case law, keep her mandate as a deputy.
On the other hand, it could not a priori be of the 2027 legislative elections – or even in the event of early elections after a new dissolution of the hemicycle of the Bourbon Palace. As in the event of a candidacy for the presidential election, it would then be up to the wise men to decide on the confirmation or not of the prohibition to arise. And on this point, there is currently no case law … The law specialists remain skeptical, however, of the question of whether the Constitutional Council would really accept to be favorable to an appeal defending such a position.