The Provincial Court of Badajoz’s ruling draws a distinction between alleged ethical failings and criminal conduct in public administration. On 14 July 2026, the court convicted David Sánchez, brother of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, as a necessary collaborator in administrative prevarication linked to his appointment by the Diputación de Badajoz. It imposed nine years of special disqualification from public employment or office, as well as disqualification from standing for elected office. The judgment imposed no prison sentence and acquitted him of influence peddling.
The disputed appointment concerned a senior post created in 2017, described in coverage as a conservatories coordinator or head of an arts-related office. The court found that the position’s administrative necessity and substantive content had not been demonstrated, and that its creation served a particular interest rather than the general interest. The case focused on the design and allocation of the public post, along with procedural irregularities in its later adaptation. Family ties alone were not at issue.
The court also convicted Miguel Ángel Gallardo, former president of the Diputación de Badajoz and former secretary-general of the PSOE in Extremadura, as the perpetrator of two administrative-prevarication offenses. It imposed two nine-year disqualification terms, amounting to 18 years, covering public office and the right to stand for election. A separate proceeding concerning the 2023 creation and temporary assignment of a post to Luis María Carrero resulted in a nine-year disqualification sentence. The government’s response to the ruling was covered earlier in the government’s defense of David Sánchez after the Badajoz court decision.
The ruling distinguished administrative prevarication from influence peddling. The court found no concrete evidence that David Sánchez or Pedro Sánchez exerted specific pressure or used political influence to secure the appointments; David Sánchez was acquitted of influence peddling. The administrative-prevarication conviction instead rested on the court’s findings about the creation and handling of the post. A separate 2023 appointment associated with support for Sánchez’s opera-related projects also came under wider scrutiny of public hiring.
Absenteeism featured in the controversy but was not a standalone offense for which Sánchez was convicted. La Crónica de Badajoz quoted the judgment as stating that, from his hiring, Sánchez “barely attended his workplace” and did not meet the employment obligations he had undertaken. The report also said his work was not habitually performed in Badajoz and did not correspond to the functions set out in the post’s creation memorandum. The nine-year disqualification was tied to his role in the administrative-prevarication offense, not to absenteeism by itself.
The ruling is not final and may be appealed to the Tribunal Supremo. If the disqualification becomes legally effective, it would bar Sánchez from public employment or office during the nine-year term; it is not a general prohibition on private-sector work. The case has renewed debate over public-sector recruitment and the line between conduct that may damage trust in institutions and conduct that meets the legal threshold for criminal liability. The court’s findings centered on the creation and allocation of public posts, while it rejected the influence-peddling allegation against Sánchez.
