The Provincial Court of Badajoz has imposed sentences of nine years of disqualification on the nine defendants that still remained to be resolved, apart from David Sánchez and Miguel Ángel Gallardo, for their involvement in the hiring of Pedro Sánchez's brother in the Badajoz Provincial Council in 2017, considering them responsible for crimes of administrative prevarication.
This is stated in the resolution made public this Tuesday by the Provincial Court of Badajoz, which Europa Press has had access to. Throughout its 378 pages, the court maintains that the position awarded to the brother of the President of the Government "was neither necessary nor even urgent" and that it was designed "tailor-made for the interested party, ultimately intended for a specific person" such as David Sánchez, so that all the accused "overrode the law" to achieve that purpose, as part of a pre-planned scheme.
Regarding the then president of the Badajoz Provincial Council, Miguel Ángel Gallardo, the Court imposes on him 18 years of special disqualification from employment or public office and from the exercise of the right to passive suffrage, as the perpetrator of two crimes of administrative prevarication.
These two crimes are related, on the one hand, to the creation of the position of coordinator of conservatory activities, which was awarded to David Sánchez in 2017, and, on the other hand, to its transformation in 2022 into the position of head of the Performing Arts Office.
As for David Sánchez Pérez-Castejón, the court considers him the perpetrator, as a necessary cooperator, of a crime of administrative prevarication linked to the modification of his position in 2022, for which it imposes a sentence of nine years of special disqualification from employment or public office and from the exercise of the right to passive suffrage.
Sentences for the other nine involved
Among the remaining defendants, nine years of disqualification are also imposed on Luis María Carrero, a friend of David Sánchez, as a necessary cooperator in a crime of administrative prevarication. Carrero occupied the position created in 2023 in the Badajoz Provincial Council in the cross-border activities section.
Likewise, the current deputy of Culture and the director of this area in the provincial institution, Ricardo Cabezas and Manuel Candalija, also receive nine years of disqualification each. The first is convicted as the perpetrator and the second as a necessary cooperator of a crime of prevarication, in relation to the creation in 2023 of the position awarded by commission of service to Luis Carrero, a friend of David Sánchez.
As for the former deputy and the former director of the Culture area in 2017, at the time the initial position of David Sánchez was created, Cristina Núñez and Elisa Moriano, both are convicted as perpetrators by necessary cooperation of a crime of administrative prevarication, with a sentence of nine years of disqualification for each.
Similarly, the staff of the Diputación de Badajoz Juana Cintas, Emilia Parejo and Francisco Martos are sentenced to nine years of disqualification, also as perpetrators by necessary cooperation of a crime of administrative prevarication, for their intervention in the modification in 2022 of the position occupied by David Sánchez.
Finally, the Human Resources official of the Diputación de Badajoz Félix González Márquez also receives a sentence of nine years of disqualification as perpetrator by necessary cooperation of a crime of administrative prevarication, for his participation in the creation of the position that David Sánchez came to hold in 2017.
Court costs and acquittal of the rest of the crimes
The sentence of the Provincial Court of Badajoz also orders the defendants to pay half of the court costs, distributed proportionally, including those arising from popular accusations. Two twelfths of said costs are attributed to the defendant Miguel Ángel Gallardo and one tenth to each of the remaining defendants.
On the other hand, the court acquits all the defendants of the rest of the criminal offenses attributed to them and declares that it is not appropriate to rule on civil liability due to a lack of standing on the part of the accusing parties to claim it.