By Marco Hugo Barsotti MHB 
You are listening to a new special of France Today in podcast and on Centrale Milano 1575 kHz.
The day of judgment
On the early afternoon of Tuesday, July 7, the Paris Court of Appeal will render its decision on the case of the parliamentary assistants of the Rassemblement National. The central issue is whether Marine Le Pen, president of the RN parliamentary group, is responsible for an alleged illegal use of public funds for hiring the assistants of the party’s MEPs. The verdict will determine whether the leader will be subject to a voting disqualification of more than two years, a condition that would bar her from running in the 2027 presidential elections, scheduled for April 18 and May 2.
Possible scenarios
Various outcomes have been hypothesized by legal experts. An acquittal would mean the immediate restoration of Le Pen’s eligibility and the removal of any criminal stigma, allowing her to launch an unimpeded electoral campaign. A conviction with a disqualification of more than two years would permanently erase any prospect of candidacy, as the appellate court’s decision would be binding until the next electoral round.
If the Court were to impose a home detention sentence with an electronic device, the leader has already stated that, with a bracelet, she would not intend to carry out campaign activities. A six‑month duration of this type, however, could give her a window starting in October to engage in the electoral race, if the measure were reduced or suspended.
A two‑year disqualification conviction without provisional execution would raise complex issues. If the suspension of the sentence were confirmed, the disqualification would expire on April 1 2027, just before the first round, making the candidacy formally possible. However, the public prosecutor has already requested the absence of provisional execution, leaving uncertainty about the actual validity of the deadline.
Appeal routes
Both Le Pen’s defense and the public prosecutor have the option to file an appeal to the Court of Cassation. Any such appeal would suspend the decision until the Court of Cassation issues a ruling, extending the waiting period for the RN leader. The same suspension could affect the ability to gather the necessary signatures and to submit the candidacy.
The final role will ultimately belong to the Constitutional Council, the sole body competent to validate presidential candidacies. According to internal sources, the Council would assess eligibility at the time of voting, not at the time of filing the dossiers, opening the door to a possible admission even if the conviction were still in force on April 18.
Reflections on the campaign
Marine Le Pen has repeatedly emphasized that her decision to run or not will not depend on a possible appeal, but on the time available for an effective campaign. With the judgment set just days after the start of summer, the coming hours will be decisive not only for her personal fate but also for the RN’s strategy ahead of the 2027 presidential elections.
Rachel’s editorial – Justice on vacation, elections in sprint
I now read to you my editorial of today.
How wonderful to see justice taking more than a year to decide whether Marine Le Pen can or cannot run for the 2027 presidency, as if it were a simple reminder for the electoral calendar. Isn’t it time to ask whether the magistrates have taken a permanent coffee break? And why, while the country burns under the heatwaves, we celebrate the slow crawl of a ruling that should be the cornerstone of a democracy?
It is curious to note how the same media, in their sacred mission to inform, give us an endless list of scenarios – from total relaxation to conviction with an electronic bracelet – as if they were items on a fast‑food menu. Who wrote this script? Could it be a new form of entertainment, more gripping than reality TV, where the suspense is kept on a candidate’s future rather than on citizens’ real problems? And where have the decorative flourishes for the victims of austerity and an unrelenting climate crisis gone?
The legal debate is shrouded in a fog of “provisional execution” and “suspension of the sentence” that looks more like a puzzle to be solved in court than a public order decision. The paradox is that, if the ruling arrives in time for the first round, the protagonist may still be unable to campaign because she is forced to wear a bracelet – a genuine electoral fashion accessory! Isn’t it comical to imagine a candidate who, instead of promising reforms, promotes a collection of wearable iron artifacts?
In the end we find ourselves asking: is justice an arena of waiting, is Parliament a theater of improbable scenarios, and the media? A director who, between one news item and another, chooses to turn the fate of an entire nation into a television program. If our democracy is a game, it is clear that the rules change more often than the electoral calendar allows. And we, anesthetized spectators, keep watching, hoping the next episode is less tragicomic than the current one.
Koan of the day
Monaco: Master, why does justice take so long to decide the future of a candidate, while the country faces fires and heatwaves?
Master: Because the law, like fire, needs time to find its dry wood, while the sun, impatient, already burns everything around it.
Monaco: Then, if the decision arrives too late, is the result still relevant or just an echo of an election already taken place?
Master: The echo is still an echo as long as someone listens; truth arrives late, but resonates louder when the people’s silence is more deafening.
This is all for now. From the Paris newsroom I’m Rachel Costa: this is Radio Nizza with Centrale Milano 1575 kHz.