Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy has launched legal proceedings to avoid electronic monitoring following his conviction in the wiretapping affair, raising fundamental questions about whether French justice applies equally to the powerful and the ordinary citizen.
The move, revealed by France Info, represents the latest chapter in Sarkozy's prolonged battle against judicial accountability—a struggle that tests the Fifth Republic's commitment to the revolutionary principle that no citizen stands above the law.
In France, as throughout the Republic, politics remains inseparable from philosophy, culture, and the eternal question of what France represents. The spectacle of a former head of state maneuvering to escape the bracelet électronique worn by thousands of ordinary French citizens convicted of far lesser offenses challenges republican ideals of égalité before the law.
The Court of Cassation, France's highest judicial authority, definitively upheld Sarkozy's one-year sentence in the so-called "écoutes" case last month. Prosecutors determined he attempted to corrupt a magistrate and traffic in influence—crimes that in republican theory warrant punishment regardless of the offender's former status.
Rather than accept the sentence, Sarkozy's legal team filed for aménagement de peine—a procedure allowing convicted individuals to request alternative sentencing arrangements. The application argues that electronic monitoring would prove "incompatible" with the former president's continuing professional obligations and public profile.
"This is precisely what undermines public faith in justice," observed Raphaëlle Bacqué, author of multiple books on Sarkozy's legal troubles. "An ordinary citizen convicted of corruption serves their sentence. A former president deploys battalions of lawyers to ensure he never experiences the consequences."
The contrast proves stark. French courts sentence approximately 15,000 people annually to electronic monitoring—primarily working-class defendants convicted of property crimes, assault, or traffic violations. They wear the bracelet, observe curfews, and rebuild their lives under judicial surveillance. The system exists precisely to provide an alternative to incarceration while maintaining accountability.
Sarkozy's legal strategy instead seeks to transform his conviction into an abstraction—acknowledged in principle but never experienced in practice. His lawyers have successfully delayed every stage of judicial proceedings since initial charges emerged over a decade ago, employing procedural mechanisms available primarily to those who can afford elite legal representation.
The political dimensions extend beyond one man's fate. Sarkozy remains influential within Les Républicains, France's center-right party struggling to define itself between Macronist centrism and the ascendant Rassemblement National. His continued legal battles complicate efforts to present the right as a party of order and institutional respect.
For the French judiciary, the case poses its own challenges. Courts must balance legitimate concerns about security and logistics surrounding a former president against the fundamental principle that criminal convictions carry consequences. Granting special accommodation risks confirming suspicions that French justice operates according to different standards for the elite.
Yet genuine complications exist. Unlike ordinary defendants, Sarkozy requires security protection due to his former role. Electronic monitoring typically involves regular check-ins with judicial authorities—arrangements potentially complicated by ongoing security protocols. These practical considerations, however, differ from claims that monitoring itself proves incompatible with his status.
The broader pattern troubles observers across the political spectrum. Sarkozy faces multiple ongoing cases: the Libyan financing scandal alleging illegal campaign contributions from the Gaddafi regime, the Bygmalion case involving fraudulent campaign accounting, and various other investigations. In each instance, his legal team has successfully deployed delaying tactics, appeals, and procedural challenges to postpone consequences.
"French justice moves slowly, but it does move," noted Denis Salas, a magistrate and author on judicial institutions. "The question is whether it moves so slowly for powerful defendants that practical accountability becomes impossible."
For ordinary French citizens watching the spectacle unfold, the contrast with their own experiences proves jarring. Traffic violations bring immediate penalties. Tax irregularities trigger rapid consequences. But corruption at the highest levels of the Republic generates endless legal maneuvering and delayed accountability.
The juge d'application des peines responsible for ruling on Sarkozy's request faces an unenviable position. Denying accommodation invites accusations of political persecution and judicial overreach. Granting special treatment confirms suspicions that the powerful escape consequences that ordinary citizens cannot avoid.
Sarkozy himself has remained publicly silent on the latest maneuver, allowing his lawyers to speak on his behalf. This strategic distance permits him to maintain the posture of a statesman unfairly targeted by partisan judges while deploying every available legal mechanism to avoid the bracelet électronique.
As France approaches the 2027 presidential election amid widespread dissatisfaction with institutions and political leadership, the Sarkozy affair crystallizes broader questions about elite impunity. Does French democracy still embody revolutionary principles of égalité, or have republican ideals given way to a system where power protects power?
In France, as throughout the Republic, politics remains inseparable from philosophy, culture, and the eternal question of what France represents—a question that Sarkozy's legal struggles force the nation to confront with uncomfortable clarity.
