The Spanish government moved quickly to defend David Sánchez, brother of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, after the Audiencia Provincial de Badajoz sentenced him on 14 July 2026 to nine years of special disqualification from public employment or office, as well as disqualification from standing for elected office. The court found him a necessary collaborator in an administrative prevaricación offense connected to his appointment at the Diputación de Badajoz. It imposed no prison sentence. Senior officials argued that the case is being used to undermine the executive.
The case concerned a position created in 2017 to coordinate activities at two conservatories and David Sánchez’s later role as head of the Diputación’s Office of Performing Arts. The court concluded that the original post lacked genuine administrative need and substantive duties, and that the appointment served a private interest, not the general interest. Its findings concerned the legality and purpose of the hiring process. The court did not establish that Pedro Sánchez or his brother used family influence or exerted specific pressure on the officials involved.
News of the court’s decision reached the Prime Minister as he attended France’s national day military parade in Paris. Government spokesperson Elma Saiz said the ruling was respected but not shared. The Fiscalía sought David Sánchez’s acquittal after the conviction, taking a position that differed from the trial court’s judgment. The government has cited that request in arguing the case should be reconsidered on appeal, while maintaining its belief that higher courts will ultimately clear him.
Government sources called the sentence unjust and unsupported by evidence. Officials emphasized that the judgment did not establish undue pressure or influence in the hiring process. David Sánchez’s defense appealed, and the Fiscalía also sought acquittal. The next judicial stage is before the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Extremadura, which may uphold or alter the Badajoz judgment. Further appeals could then proceed to the Tribunal Supremo and potentially the Tribunal Constitucional.
The nine-year disqualification bars David Sánchez from public employment or office once the sentence becomes legally effective, but it does not prevent him from working in the private sector. A subsequent judicial clarification reportedly stated that the restriction extends beyond his Diputación post to other public positions. The conviction is not final, so its practical effects depend on the appeal outcome. Transport Minister Óscar Puente said the period would be remembered for the strain placed on institutions in an effort to bring down the administration.
From La Moncloa, officials have framed the proceedings as an attempt to damage the Prime Minister through his relatives. In Congress, Socialist spokesperson Patxi López called the ruling “an outrage” and denounced what he described as a “witch hunt” against the head of government. The Socialist Party has reiterated its support for those convicted, including David Sánchez and Miguel Ángel Gallardo. Rebeca Torró, the party’s Organization Secretary, affirmed their full backing, which also extends to the convicted technical staff. Pedro Sánchez defended his brother, saying, “He is being convicted because he is the brother of the president of the government.”
The controversy in Badajoz has drawn national attention, particularly because the Fiscalía sought acquittal while the trial court convicted David Sánchez. Earlier developments in the case are detailed in coverage of the initial court ruling against David Sánchez and other officials. The legal battle continues through the appeals process.
Administrative prevaricación is an offense involving the knowing issuance of an unjust administrative decision. Here, the court focused on the creation and purpose of the public post, finding that it lacked genuine administrative need and served a private interest. The nine-year disqualification and separate restriction on standing for elected office remain subject to the appeal outcome. The case has also become a political dispute over the relationship between government and the judiciary, given the defendant’s family connection to the Prime Minister.
