Raphael Fisch in the vacation proceedings 2026: Documented motions and submissions
Source-based reconstruction. Private family members are not identified. Officeholders and professionals are mentioned only in their documented capacity.
On 14 August, Raphael Fisch, on behalf of the respondent, requested confirmation of the first week of October, the dismissal of the second week of October with the father, its allocation to the mother, and the dismissal of any compensation for the August week. The legal submission argued that the mother had early on given the father the free choice of one of the two autumn holiday weeks. The legal submission describes…
Source basis
What the files show
On 14 August Raphael Fisch, on behalf of the respondent, applied for confirmation of the first October week, for the dismissal of the second October week with the father and its allocation to the mother, and for the dismissal of compensation for the August week. The lawyer's submission argued that the mother had early on left it to the father to choose freely one of the two autumn holiday weeks. The lawyer's submission described compensation for the missed August week as inappropriate and, alternatively, proposed the first Christmas holiday week subject to the holiday-rule provision. On 28 August Raphael Fisch informed, after consultation with his client, that he would refrain from any further submission and requested a prompt decision.
Application and opposing position
For this aspect, no separate additional motion is decisive; the analysis compares the documented state of the file with the result.
On 28 August, Raphael Fisch informed, after consultation with his client, that he would refrain from any further statement and requested a prompt decision.
Checkpoint
The public classification remains limited to the documented professional conduct. Personal motives, intentions or character attributions are not substantiated.
LawReport classification
The person is not characterized here, but described on the basis of a documented professional act. Decisive are the date, function, specific proposal or decision and the associated primary source. Motives, convictions or personal characteristics cannot be inferred from this.
What does not follow from that
The documented proceedings establish the mentioned motions, statements and steps in decision-making. They do not, by themselves, establish personal motives, bias, abuse of rights or a general unlawfulness. Such further assessments would require additional legal and factual foundations.
Further posts