Cancelled August week: replacement requested, compensation denied
Reconstruction based on sources. Private family members are not identified. Office-holders and professionals are mentioned only in their documented function.
The requested vacation week from 3 to 9 August 2026 did not take place. For the missed August week, a full replacement block of seven calendar days in 2026 was requested; alternatively, another full seven-day block was to be designated. The decision expressly does not characterize this Christmas/New Year block as compensation for the missed August week, but as a second vacation week in 2026.
Source basis
What the files show
The requested holiday week from 3 to 9 August 2026 did not take place. For the missed August week, a complete replacement block of seven calendar days in 2026 was requested; alternatively another complete seven-day block should be designated.
Motion and opposing position
For the cancelled week in August a full replacement block of seven calendar days in 2026 was requested; alternatively another full seven-day block should be designated.
The decision expressly does not designate this Christmas/New Year block as compensation for the missed August week, but as a second holiday week in 2026.
Examination point
The precise legal scope of a replacement or compensation claim must be distinguished from the question of which specific vacation blocks the continuing title provides for and how they are determined in the individual case.
LawReport classification
The contribution separates the titled scope of leave, the concrete exercise of it, and the question of a claim for replacement or compensation. These levels must not be conflated: the existence of an annual entitlement does not automatically entitle one to any desired choice of dates; conversely, a deviation from the specifically requested scope must remain comprehensible on the basis of the justification.
What does not follow therefrom
The documented records substantiate the stated motions, statements and decision-making steps. They do not, by themselves, demonstrate personal motives, bias, abuse of rights or general illegality. Such further assessments would require additional legal and factual grounds.
Further articles