On the fifth day of the trial of the National Front aides, former MEP Bruno Gollnisch developed his arguments at length, sometimes irritating the court with his offbeat responses.
Until then, he grumbled from the dock, nodded his head while listening to the debates or reread his notes. This Tuesday, October 8 was finally the opportunity for Bruno Gollnisch to address the 11th chamber of the Paris criminal court directly, as part of the trial of the FN parliamentary assistants. And present his defense in the style of a lecture, sometimes irritating the court, sometimes amusing the assembly.
Bruno Gollnisch, 74, is being prosecuted for embezzlement of public funds, for having hired three people as parliamentary assistants: Micheline Bruna, who was also personal secretary to Jean-Marie Le Pen; Yann Le Pen, in charge of organizing major events and second daughter of the founder of the FN; and Guillaume L’Huillier, working in the office of Jean-Marie Le Pen. In total, the amount of embezzlement with which he is accused amounts to 1.41 million euros, between 2005 and 2015.
“I will answer you on the facts, because I have nothing to hide”promises Bruno Gollnisch. For almost five hours, the former elected official, MEP for thirty years, applied himself to rolling out his lines of defense. But by focusing mainly on long legal demonstrations around what he is accused of and repeating his position held for years on this matter: the court would not have jurisdiction. “The Republic has principles, including the separation of powers”which opposes any interference by the judicial institution in the affairs of deputies and their assistants. “A deputy is above the law?”the president is surprised. “No, but the control of acts taken within the parliamentary framework can only be carried out by the Parliament office”replies the defendant.
“I think you should agree with my point of view. This would have the great advantage of relieving the work of your court.”
Bruno Gollnischto the president of the criminal court
But Bruno Gollnisch still came to defend himself. Asked about his career, from his studies in Japan to his law courses in France, the lawyer distills the anecdotes. Before getting to his political commitments. “We will try to be concise about your political career”urges the president. The faithful henchman of Jean-Marie Le Pen, pillar of the party, quickly passes over the period “painful” where he failed to obtain the presidency of the Front.
In the European Parliament from 1989 to 2019, Bruno Gollnisch wants to prove that he was “particularly active”. In terms of attendance, “I am in the lead pack. We did the job at the cost of an extraordinarily perilous exercisehe boasts. I led a tiring life and I didn’t see my children grow up.” The president begins to tense: “There is absolutely no question of saying that you have not devoted yourself to your European mandate intensely enough.” But the former MP insists on it, and he did not come empty-handed. He brought a “hagiographic brochure”, “which only says good things about [lui]taking into account the fact that the thing is rare”. Page 15, a photo of a meeting in Sofia; page 17, that of “worldliness” in Austria; page 23, “a motorhome with which [il a] traveled 20,000 km on the electoral campaign.” “Am I then a member of the FN or a European deputy? Of course, both at the same time.” A double hat recalling the defense of Thierry Légier and Fernand Le Rachinel, heard the day before.
“We will now talk about parliamentary assistants”announces the president, two and a half hours after the start of the hearing. “Do you acknowledge that you signed these contracts?” “Yes, yes, yes”replies the former elected official. “You were his employer?” “Why not…” And to resume a long lecture, hands on the bar and elbows raised, now aiming to demonstrate that none of the parliamentary assistants in this case should end up in court. He is asked to focus on the specific facts. “Madame Bruna? On the facts?… No because there is still a lot to say about the law!” The president interrupts: “We understand your position, we will have to move on.”
Hands now clasped behind his back, Bruno Gollnisch rolls out another line of defense: the FN signed these contracts in full view of everyone, starting with the European administration. “Of course, this was known to everyone”the defendant almost shouts. “The deputies [européens] paid only fairly discreet attention to these standards and relied on the competent services to find out if this posed a problem.” “You plead innocent ignorance”understands the prosecutor.
Finally, we come to the parliamentary assistants. The opportunity to mobilize, like others, the argument of employee pooling. “Mrs Bruna worked as part of the assistant pool”assures the former elected official.
“Yes, we have pooled resources according to needs.”
Bruno Gollnischbefore the criminal court
The secretary, he said, worked at Montretout, Saint-Cloud, where the office of Jean-Marie Le Pen is certainly located, but also the political secretariat of the group of European deputies. “This benefited all MPs.” And not for the benefit of the party, he promises: “Show all, it’s distinct from the National Front.” Dropping a comment on the famous organization chart from which the whole affair started: “It must have been written by a mob at party headquarters, who was not concerned with the parliamentary question.”
Short questions, long answers: Bruno Gollnisch continues the demonstrations and almost prevents the court from repeating its questions. The civil party notes that he did not produce documents proving the activity of Micheline Bruna. “No, because Ms. Bruna’s activity, making appointments, organizing travel, receiving mail, archiving… did not leave any material traces.” The president asks him why the notion of pool, which he mentions, has not been translated into the contracts. Bruno Gollnisch calms down. “Madam President, you have touched on the only mistake we have had. I discovered at the end of my mandate that there were measures allowing the creation of a pool of deputies to hire a group of assistants. We should have done that.”
The hearing is suspended. Micheline Bruna then Yann Le Pen are called to the stand, Bruno Gollnisch returns to follow their statements from his bench. He must be heard again on Wednesday October 9, with his former assistant Guillaume L’Huillier. And has already announced that it has prepared the rest of its demonstration.