Application of 30 July: Three holiday blocks, urgency and subsidiary request
Source-based reconstruction. Private family members are not identified. Officeholders and professionals are referred to only by their documented function.
The petition of 30 July requested the immediate securing of the August week and the timely binding determination of the two October blocks; for the third block, alternatively another seven-day period in 2026 was requested. For 2026 three specific holiday blocks were designated; it was later expressly stated that none of the three holiday weeks would be waived. On 3 August the super-provisional an…
Source basis
What the files show
The request of 30 July sought the immediate securing of the August week and the timely binding determination of the two October blocks; for the third block, alternatively another seven-day period in 2026 was requested. Three specific holiday blocks were designated for 2026; it was later expressly stated that none of the three weeks of holiday would be relinquished.
Application and opposing position
The application of 30 July requested the immediate securing of the August week and the timely binding determination of the two October blocks; for the third block, alternatively, another seven-day period in 2026 was requested.
On 3 August the super-provisional order for the ongoing week in August was dismissed because the court regarded the special urgency as self-inflicted by the delay.
Checkpoint
For review, a strict distinction must be drawn between parties' submissions, the lawyer's request, and the court's finding.
LawReport classification
The documents show several procedural stages: application, protective brief, super-provisional request, submissions and the subsequent precautionary decision. For the assessment, each stage must be treated separately; a party's submission is not a judicial finding and a later decision does not retroactively replace the state of the file at that time.
What does not follow from this
The documented proceedings substantiate the mentioned motions, statements and decision steps. They do not, without more, establish personal motives, bias, abuse of rights or a general unlawfulness. Such further assessments would require additional legal and factual grounds.
Further contributions