The Provincial Court of Badajoz concluded that a public position was tailored for David Sánchez, brother of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, but found no concrete evidence showing who requested or orchestrated its creation. In its ruling on 14 July 2026, the court convicted David Sánchez as a necessary cooperator in administrative prevarication linked to his hiring by the Badajoz Provincial Council. Miguel Ángel Gallardo, then council president and former secretary-general of the PSOE in Extremadura, was convicted of two administrative-prevarication offenses. Sánchez received nine years of special disqualification from public employment or office and standing for elected office, without a prison sentence; Gallardo was disqualified for 18 years. The court acquitted the defendants of influence peddling, finding no proven intervention or specific pressure by Pedro Sánchez or David Sánchez.
The decision examines David Sánchez's initial hiring as coordinator of the Badajoz conservatories and the later renaming of his position to director of the Office of Performing Arts. It also considers the award of another post to his friend, Luis Carrero. The disputed coordinator position was created in 2017. The court found no demonstrated administrative need or real substantive content, and concluded that the post served a particular interest rather than the general interest. The trial, held from 28 May to 9 June 2026, involved 11 defendants. The ruling established administrative prevarication but rejected the separate influence-peddling allegation, which required proof of personal influence or pressure.
Information from the verdict, David Sánchez's job was established in October 2016, shortly after Pedro Sánchez resigned as PSOE secretary general. The timing, the court noted, could suggest an attempt to favor him because of his political connections, but no direct link or request was proven. The judges found no evidence that any specific individual exerted pressure or used their position to influence the process. The origin of the decision remains unresolved.
In 2022, David Sánchez's role changed from conservatory coordinator to head of the Office of Performing Arts. The investigating judge initially argued that the change catered to Sánchez's personal preferences. At trial, but, Sánchez said he did not know about the modification until after it happened, and witnesses testified that the new title did not affect his salary or duties. The court found no evidence that Sánchez or anyone connected to him had pressured or influenced the change.
The investigation also scrutinized the appointment of Luis Carrero, a career civil servant and friend of David Sánchez who had previously worked at the Moncloa Palace. Carrero was named head of a section in the Badajoz Provincial Council in December 2023. The court reviewed email correspondence between Sánchez and Carrero but found no proof of undue influence or pressure in creating or awarding Carrero's position.
The prosecution had sought acquittal for all defendants, arguing that the indications did not establish criminal offenses; the popular accusers had sought prison sentences for administrative prevarication and influence peddling. The court found prevarication proven but rejected the influence-peddling charge. Pedro Sánchez later said: “He is being convicted for being the brother of the president of the government.” The judgment is not final and can be appealed, with the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Extremadura identified as the next forum for review.
This verdict follows a series of legal actions involving David Sánchez's hiring. He was sentenced to nine years of disqualification, as detailed in a related case covered by RUSSPAIN see the report on the court's earlier decision. If the conviction stands, the disqualification bars him from public employment or office and from standing for elected office during the applicable period. The current ruling leaves unanswered who, if anyone, directed the controversial appointments.
The Badajoz case has drawn national attention because of its political implications and the high-profile figures involved. The court found administrative wrongdoing in creating or allocating the post, but did not find the specific pressure or intervention needed to establish influence peddling. The ruling distinguishes the unlawful administrative decision from the separate allegation that an individual used influence to secure it. The outcome may prompt closer scrutiny of hiring practices within public institutions, particularly when family or personal relationships intersect with official decisions.
