The authors are (imo validly) criticizing that besides financial fraud, which she clearly did commit, the court also introduces a novel concept of her being a threat to 'democratic public order' as a justification for parts of its ruling – which is not a legal violation per se and the use of which as basis for a decision is hence questionable.
I get what the court is trying to do (="millitant democracy") but I also get why the authors find this dubious.