I surround Sánchez's brother: they demand the Court of Auditors to return the public money collected from the Badajoz Provincial Council

Without specific data about your file, it is only possible to explain the usual status and deadlines of a claim before the Court of Auditors in general terms. In practical terms, the processing goes through a phase of admission and preliminary actions, an investigation phase, and, if applicable, an accounting liability procedure that ends with a judgment. The deadlines are extensive and, in complex claims, the procedure can last several years. Below I detail the typical phases and approximate times so you can locate at what point a claim usually is.

1. Phases of processing before the Court of Auditors

1.1. Submission and admission of the claim

The claim (complaint, initiation document, or accounting liability claim) is registered at the Court of Auditors and assigned to the competent bodies.

• Formal check: it is reviewed whether the claim meets minimum requirements (identification, facts, basic documents).
• Admission or filing: if the facts are not within the Court's jurisdiction or are manifestly unfounded, they may be filed at this initial stage.

At this moment, it is usually referred to as “preliminary actions” or “prior information” to determine whether to open an accounting liability procedure.

1.2. Preliminary actions and investigation phase

If the claim is admitted for processing, a preliminary investigation phase is opened:

• Request for information: the Court requests documentation from the affected administration, public entities, or the persons indicated.
• Technical reports: the audit sections or the instruction analyze the possible existence of damage to public funds.
• Qualification: it is decided whether the facts may constitute accounting liability (at least indicatively).

The result may be filing (if there is insufficient evidence) or the opening of a formal accounting liability procedure.

1.3. Accounting liability procedure

When there is an indication of damage to public funds, an accounting procedure is initiated, with a quasi-judicial nature:

• Formal claim or initiation document: filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office or by the Court itself.
• Notification to the alleged responsible parties: they are given a deadline to respond, propose evidence, and make allegations.
• Evidence gathering: documentary, expert, testimonial, or whatever is deemed appropriate.
• Conclusion and judgment: the Trial Chamber issues a resolution declaring, or not, the existence of accounting liability and, if applicable, the amount to be reimbursed.

1.4. Appeals and finality

An appeal may be filed against the Court of Auditors' judgment before the Contentious Chamber of the Supreme Court (under the terms provided in the Organic Law of the Court of Auditors and the Law regulating the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction). Only when the resolution is final is the claim definitively concluded.

2. Approximate resolution deadlines

2.1. Admission and preliminary actions phase

In practice, this phase can last several months, especially if abundant documentation is required from other bodies. In simple claims, the decision to file or proceed can be known within approximately 6 to 12 months, although there is no single fixed deadline for all cases.

2.2. Processing of the accounting procedure

If an accounting liability procedure is opened, the times extend:

• Instruction and evidence: it can take more than a year in complex files, with many affected parties or technical expertises.
• Judgment: once the procedure is concluded, the resolution may be delayed several additional months.

Overall, from initial admission to the Trial Chamber's judgment, it is not unusual for 2 to 3 years to elapse in matters of some importance. In especially large cases (major contracts, large projects, multiple fiscal years), times can be even longer.

2.3. Appeals before the Supreme Court

If an appeal is filed against the Court of Auditors' judgment, the phase before the Supreme Court can add, as a general reference, between 1 and 2 additional years, depending on workload and the legal complexity of the matter.

3. What you need to know the specific status

To know the real status and expected deadlines of a specific claim, it is essential to identify:

• Procedure or file number of the Court of Auditors.
• Type of action: whether it is in the prior information phase, reimbursement procedure by scope, accounts trial, etc.
• Approximate submission date and whether any resolution has already been notified (filing, admission, claim, judgment).

With this data, the Court of Auditors' Secretariat itself or the involved legal representation (State Attorney, private lawyer, etc.) can offer a more accurate estimate of the phase you are in and what times to expect.

The Court of Auditors is the supreme external control body of the economic-financial activity of the public sector in Spain and is responsible for demanding accounting liability for the misuse of public funds. It is organizationally dependent on the General Courts, to which it reports through reports and memoranda. It audits both the legality and regularity of expenditure and, in certain cases, its economy, effectiveness, and efficiency. Additionally, it acts as a specialized jurisdiction to investigate the liability of those who cause damage to public funds.

Institutional position and relationship with Parliament

The Court of Auditors is a constitutional body that acts with functional independence from the Government. However, it is closely linked to the General Courts:

• It presents an Annual Report on the State General Account and on the audit activity carried out.
• It sends reports, motions, and notes to parliamentary committees, which may debate them and lead to political control initiatives.
• The Plenary of the Congress and the Senate participates in the selection of its counselors, reinforcing its character as a body serving parliamentary control of public finances.

Subjective scope: who is subject to control

The Court's competence covers practically the entire public sector in Spain, including:

• General State Administration, autonomous communities, and local entities.
• Autonomous agencies, agencies, and other public law entities dependent on the administrations.
• Public companies, state commercial companies, foundations, and public consortia.
• Social Security and its managing entities.
• Certain private entities that manage or receive public funds, such as political parties and entities benefiting from subsidies.

Objective scope: what funds and operations it controls

The Court of Auditors controls the totality of public income and expenditure and operations that have an impact on public coffers, in particular:

• Budgets and their execution: credits, modifications, deviations, and fiscal year closure.
• Public contracting, concessions, and assignments to own resources.
• Management of subsidies and public aid.
• Debt operations, guarantees, and other financial operations.
• Public assets and their administration (disposals, acquisitions, use of real estate, etc.).

Audit function (external control)

The audit function is the most visible facet of the Court. Its main characteristics are:

• Control of legality and regularity: it verifies that economic-financial activity complies with budgetary, accounting, and contracting regulations, among others.
• Control of economy, effectiveness, and efficiency: in many reports, it evaluates the degree of achievement of objectives, the cost of services, and the rational use of resources.
• External, permanent, and subsequent nature: it acts afterwards, once operations have been carried out, and continuously over time.

As a result of this function, it issues different types of documents: audit reports (general or specific), motions with recommendations for regulatory or management improvement, and notes or communications when it detects incidents requiring quick or coordinated action.

Jurisdictional function: accounting liability

Besides auditing, the Court of Auditors exercises a specialized jurisdiction in accounting liability matters. This means that:

• It can try managers and responsible parties who, through intent or gross negligence, have caused an economic harm to public funds.
• It can issue judgments declaring the existence of accounting liability and ordering the restitution of funds improperly handled.
• Its function is compensatory, not criminal or disciplinary; it does not impose prison sentences but the return of damages caused to the public treasury.

Investigation powers and limits

To fulfill its functions, the Court of Auditors can:

• Require audited entities to submit accounts, documents, databases, and necessary information.
• Carry out inspections and on-site verifications.
• Impose warnings or coercive fines in case of resistance, obstruction, or unjustified delay in providing information.

Its main limits are:

• It cannot assess the political opportunity of decisions, only their legality and, if applicable, their effectiveness and efficiency.
• Its control is basically subsequent; prior and simultaneous control corresponds to internal audits and controls.
• It does not replace criminal jurisdiction nor disciplinary bodies; it acts within its own accounting scope.

Coordination with other control bodies

The Court of Auditors coordinates with existing internal and external control bodies:

• With the IGAE and the Interventions of autonomous communities and local entities, which carry out internal and prior or simultaneous legality and accounting control.
• With the Autonomous External Control Bodies (regional chambers or courts of accounts), through agreements and joint work plans to avoid duplications and share methodology.
• With Parliament, which can request specific audits, and with the Public Prosecutor when its reports lead to possible criminal liabilities.

David Sánchez Pérez-Castejón, artistically known as David Azagra, developed before joining the Diputación de Badajoz a career focused on classical music, orchestral conducting, and cultural management, with higher studies in Spain and Russia and collaborations with leading theaters. Available sources describe him as a fundamentally technical and artistic profile, without known organic positions in political parties, although linked to the Extremaduran socialist environment through his relationship with his brother, the Prime Minister, and with PSOE leaders in Badajoz. His arrival at the Diputación occurred in 2017, after years of an international career under the name David Azagra.

Academic training

Biographies collected in various media indicate that he completed part of his secondary education in the United States and graduated in Economics and Business Studies at ICADE, before fully specializing in music. Later, he studied at the State Conservatory of Saint Petersburg, where he trained in Composition and Orchestral Conducting, and expanded studies in leading European cities such as Lucerne, Milan, and Siena, as reported by, among others, El Confidencial and the summary of the encyclopedic article.

The judicial procedure has specifically debated the homologation of his Russian degrees. Democrata details doubts about the chronology of a diploma issued in Saint Petersburg and its rapid homologation by the Ministry of Education in an analysis about the “Russian degree” and in another piece where the popular accusation requests the original conservatory diploma, [link].

Previous musical and professional career

According to the biographical profile published by the newspaper Democrata in “Why David Sánchez uses the name David Azagra”, David Sánchez was born in Madrid in 1974 and his career is linked to composition, orchestral conducting, and cultural management. That article states that he studied music at the Saint Petersburg Conservatory and that, before his stage in Badajoz, he developed part of his career outside Spain, with collaborations or work linked to institutions such as the Mariinsky Theatre and the Mikhailovsky Theatre of Saint Petersburg, the Teatro Real of Madrid, and the Teatro Pérez Galdós of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.

Other journalistic profiles, such as those from El Confidencial, Público, HuffPost, The Objective, Okdiario or El Español, agree in presenting him before 2017 as a professional musician and cultural manager with international activity, without institutional responsibilities in Spain.

Relationship with Extremadura and the PSOE before 2017

Politically, there is no evidence in the consulted sources that Sánchez held organic positions in the PSOE or other parties before arriving at the Diputación de Badajoz. His political relevance derives mainly from being the brother of Pedro Sánchez and his relationship with socialist leaders in Extremadura. The editorial of El Mundo about “the political link of the ‘big brother’” highlights that connection with the PSOE and with the environment of Miguel Ángel Gallardo, then a key figure of the socialist party in Badajoz.

Democrata reconstructs how, from PSOE events in Don Benito and the Badajoz area, David Sánchez's relationship with the socialist structure of the province was woven in a report about the design of his position. In 2014, according to that piece, he had already explored the possibility of accessing a position linked to conservatories, although that first initiative did not prosper. In any case, he is mentioned as part of a political and relational ecosystem, not as a leader or elected official.

Other chronicles, already focused on the judicial case, such as those from Democrata, eldiario.es, [link] or ABC, reiterate that his previous profile was that of a musician and cultural manager, and that the political dimension appears due to the combination of his surname and the power structure in the Diputación.

Arrival at the Diputación de Badajoz (cut-off point of your question)

The jump from that musical career to the provincial administration occurred in 2017, when, after a public competition, he obtained a position as coordinator of conservatory activities at the Diputación de Badajoz, in the Culture area. This fact is described both in judicial pieces from eldiario.es, such as “The Badajoz Court supports the investigation…”, and in the exhaustive “who is who” about the trial published by Democrata, [link].

That position is the one that, years later, will be transformed into the Performing Arts Office, already within the Diputación, and which gives rise to the criminal procedure culminating in his nine-year disqualification sentence described by Democrata in the sentence chronicle and contextualized in other pieces such as [link], [link] or [link]. But all this corresponds already to his post-entry stage at the Diputación, while before 2017, sources place him exclusively as a music professional and cultural manager, without documented political career.

Besides the above, the cited contextual information also comes from: Nueva Economía Fórum, PP, El Mundo (Airbnb), eldiario.es (Sánchez's statement), eldiario.es (rumors about the position), another eldiario.es piece, and multiple judicial chronicles from Democrata such as [link], [link], [link], [link], [link], [link] and [link].