The European Parliament demands 300,000 euros from Jean-Marie Le Pen for undue mandate costs

Between 2009 and 2018, Jean-Marie Le Pen was unduly reimbursed for numerous expenses, including desk clocks, connected bracelets and 129 bottles of wine, according to a report from the European Anti-Fraud Office.

The European Parliament is demanding more than 300,000 euros from Jean-Marie Le Pen for having unduly charged MEP mandate fees, in a case separate from that of parliamentary assistants currently being tried in Paris.

In a decision of July 8, notified to the former far-right leader, but which had not been made public, the Secretary General of the European Parliament demanded 303,200.99 euros from him, AFP learned on Monday October 7 . The former leader of the Frontist party has filed an appeal against the decision of the European Parliament before the General Court of the European Union, his lawyer, Me François Wagner, told AFP.

In question, the use of mandate fees under “budget line 400” of the European Parliament. This line is intended to cover “administrative and operating expenses of political groups and the secretariat of non-attached deputies” and those “related to political and information activities within the framework of the political activities of the European Union”.

However, from 2009 to 2018, Jean-Marie Le Pen was unduly reimbursed for expenses for newsletters, pens, business cards, ties, umbrellas, kitchen scales, desk clocks, connected bracelets, virtual reality glasses or another 129 bottles of wine, according to a report from the European Anti-Fraud Office (Olaf). Olaf notably estimated that many of the news bulletins were “copy and paste” of open access texts and had been overcharged “in relation to the work actually done to produce them”according to extracts from its report published by Mediapart in March 2022.

When contacted, the European Parliament indicated for its part that “the administration of Parliament is required, when it receives serious indications that funds have been unduly paid, to carry out a verification of compliance with the applicable administrative financial rules of the case in question, to request clarification from the Member concerned and to recover the money unduly paid if no proof of compliant expenses is provided”. “This does not replace any legal procedure or investigation”added the institution.