
On July 15, 2026, the Audiencia Provincial de Badajoz convicted David Sánchez, brother of Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, to nine years of disqualification from public employment for prevaricación (maladministration), but acquitted him of tráfico de influencias. Source: El Confidencial, ABC
The court found that a job as coordinator of conservatory activities was created specifically for David Sánchez in 2016-2017, with a subsequent modification in 2022 transforming it into a tailored post. He was convicted only for the 2022 change due to prescription of the earlier offense. The court relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, stating that 'delitos de despacho' are hard to prove with direct documents. Source: El Confidencial, El Mundo
The government and PSOE denounced the ruling as judicial persecution. Minister Óscar López claimed it was 'mala política y nada de justicia,' while spokesperson Elma Saiz hoped higher courts would reverse it. Source: El Español, El País Opposition PP's Ester Muñoz argued the sentence 'tira por tierra el discurso del lawfare.' Source: ABC Sumar's Verónica Martínez Barbero said it 'carece de fundamento jurídico' and aimed to topple the government. Source: Infobae
Commentators note the case deepens polarization and may affect Spain's already low perceived judicial independence (ranked 22nd in EU). Source: El Español Some in PSOE believe the 'attacks on the family' could mobilize leftist voters. Source: El País David Sánchez's lawyer Emilio Cortés announced an appeal, stating 'no hay ninguna prueba' for the conviction.
“para la determinación de los hechos incardinables en los tipos penales que están siendo objeto de acusación (delitos contra la Administración Pública), es crucial la prueba indiciaria, habida cuenta de que son los ‘delitos de despacho’ que van precedidos de conversaciones y actos preparatorios que difícilmente son instrumentados en documentos oficiales”
“David Sánchez tuvo 'conocimiento previo de que el puesto se había creado para él, se presentó a la convocatoria, e hizo la entrevista para simular la legalidad formal del procedimiento'”
“La propia sentencia tira por tierra el discurso del 'lawfare'”
“la sentencia 'no aporta pruebas de cargo que justifiquen esta condena'”