This article reconstructs only the documented procedural sequence. It separates the application, the court’s response and editorial analysis.
What the record shows
In a letter dated 15 October 2025 in divorce proceedings [interne Kennung entfernt], lawyer Raphael Fisch asked for the running deadline to file the statement of defence to be withdrawn or, alternatively, extended.
A later letter from the District Court records that the deadline for the statement of defence was deemed withdrawn, as requested by Fisch, and would be set again. The court linked this step to the intended coordinated handling of the interim-measures and debtor-instruction proceedings.
What follows – and what does not
The documents therefore show a procedural request by counsel and the court’s subsequent treatment of that request. They do not establish the substantive merits of the represented party’s position or the later outcome of the divorce proceedings.
LawReport analysis
The division of roles is decisive: Fisch made a procedural deadline request as counsel; the court decided whether the deadline would be withdrawn and reset. Keeping those roles separate prevents counsel’s submission from being mistaken for a judicial finding.