The EU’s far-right and judicial conflict

Story so far:

Across the EU, major and escalating conflicts are taking place between rising right-wing nationalist parties and the judicial system of member states. Recent court rulings against far-right numbers have led to allegations of political persecution and calls for protests, forming a broader, deeply controversial fight over the independence of the judicial, the rule of law and the nature of democratic governance.

What rulings exacerbate the conflict?

The direct contact factor that intensifies the conflict is several high-profile court rulings. In France, when the Paris Criminal Court ruled on March 31 against Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Rally Party (RN), the political landscape was shaken and sentenced her to misappropriation of EU funds. The sentence includes four years in prison (suspended for two years) and, crucially, a five-year ban on public office. The ruling was passed to more than two years before the expected 2027 French presidential election, with Ms. Le Pen being the leading contender, effectively waived her unless the appeal was overturned.

Similar confrontations are also obvious elsewhere. In Romania, the Constitutional Court upheld a ruling prohibiting Călin Georgescu, a far-right figure who was unexpectedly cancelled in May 2025 rescheduled matches before the 2024 presidential election. The court’s actions stemmed from the principle of “armed democracy” on the grounds that Mr. Georgeku’s alleged anti-democracy acts, fraudulent campaign financing declarations and alleged links to Russian-backed subversion efforts led to the initial election results.

Meanwhile, in Germany, the Domestic Intelligence Agency (BFV) classifies the German (AFD) party alternative as a suspicious threat to democracy and the constitution and carefully examines it. Although formal attempts to ban German parties since the 1950s face high legal barriers and few successes, the BFV designation highlights deep concerns within German institutions about the compatibility of the AFD with the country’s “basic order of liberal democracy.”

What’s the reaction?

The target party and its supporters responded quickly and rebelled. Ms. Le Pen and her supporters immediately condemned the verdict, based on political motivation. She called the lawsuit “political witch hunting” to make her party weaken her party and argued that the Sapin II law was banned from running for office under retrospective application. Ms. Le Pen vowed not to “give up” and a hearing is scheduled to be held in 2026.

Meanwhile, nationalist leaders across the continent commented on the rulings. After Le Pen’s verdict, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán posted “JE Suis Marine” on social media platform X, while Italian Deputy Prime Minister Lega Party Leader Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini also expressed support for Ms. Le Pen and criticized “Brussels” and “Brussels” and “Brussels” and “Brussels” and “Brussels” and “Brussels” and “and” Brussels”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

Germany’s AFD posed legal challenges to the surveillance and classification decisions of BFVs, while also taking internal steps such as disbanding its official Youth Ministry (“Young Alternative”) (BFV) to classify it as an extremist, a move by Politico that describes potentially designed to avoid bans and defeat parties.

The narrative that European conservative nationalists have consistently promoted is that these legal actions are not the real application of the law, but politically motivated actions through ingrained “institutions” or “elites” trying to eliminate strong electoral competitors who have gained significant ground across Europe.

How will this affect the wider European politics?

This resonates with part of the disillusionment of traditional politics. They argue that the judiciary (far from fairness) has become a tool to curb the conservative movement, questioning the selective application of laws such as Sapin II and accusing mainstream figures of being often overlooked.

The conflict involved a broader debate within the EU on the implications and applications of the rule of law. Liberal and centrist forces, with EU institutions such as the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), insist on adhering to the rule of law, including judicial independence and constitutional formulation and balance, which is the basis of the values ​​and legal order of the alliance.

They believe that the attacks on the judiciary, especially the government led by the former conservative PIS, Hungary, currently under Mr. Orbán, aims to reduce its independence, is a direct threat to democracy itself.

Instead, many conservative nationalist voices argue that the concept of “rule of law” in Brussels and national elites is being weapons to impose specific political agendas covering national sovereignty and democratic mandates.

Are foreign actors involved?

Add another layer of complexity to the ongoing focus on foreign interference, especially Russia. Analysis from institutions such as the Carnegie International Peace Foundation and reports from organizations such as the Sufan Center show that Russia’s efforts to undermine the Western democratic process through systematically using false information, financial support and network operations of extremist parties.

The Romanian election clearance explicitly mentioned doubts about Mr. Georgeku’s external operations, and the historical financial links between Ms. Le Pen’s RN and political parties such as Russian entities, exacerbated anxiety about Moscow’s impact.

While direct intervention is difficult to separate from domestic political dynamics, experts warn that Russia actively cultivates networks and leverages existing vulnerabilities within EU members to promote anti-EU, anti-NATO sentiment and undermine the stability of internal liberal democracy.

Famous figures outside Europe also joined. After Le Pen’s ruling, U.S. Vice President JD Vance said the conviction was imposed against “very minor crimes” and the resulting ban was “not democracy.”

Tech billionaire Elon Musk said the ruling “abuse” would be “backfire”, comparing it to a legal lawsuit against U.S. President Donald Trump and accusing the “radical left” of abuse of the global legal system to prison opponents.

Where does it leave the rule of law?

The escalating conflict has put the principle of the rule of law in an unstable position. When a large number of voters believe that the judiciary is not an independent arbiter, but as a political actor, actively opposes the representatives they choose, trust in the basic trust of democratic institutions.

Mr. Trump’s call for popularization of the “swamp” figure is that Europeans, especially younger generations, may lack commemoration of the authoritarian regime of communism in Eastern Europe and the right-wing military dictatorship in Iberia and Greece, where courts are truly used as tools of political oppression.

This erosion of trust presents long-term challenges. As Marek Safjan, former judge of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal and CJEU, pointed out, while the European judiciary, especially the CJEU, is therefore highly respected and key to integration, it is not immune to political pressure and the rise of populism.

If the courts are increasingly viewed as players in political competition rather than guardians of constitutional principles, the basic stop and balance in European democracies could be fatally weakened, opening the door to further democratic reverse driving and instability.