«Self-inflicted»: How the holiday chronology is assessed in the decision
Source-based reconstruction. Private family members are not identified. officeholders and professionals are mentioned only in their documented function.
The requested vacation week from 3 to 9 August 2026 did not take place. By letter of 9 June the letter of 4 June was answered, the vacation registration was upheld and a waiver was explicitly not declared. The court notes that only two vacation weeks could still be taken, and describes this as self-inflicted.
Sources
What the files show
The requested holiday week from 3 to 9 August 2026 did not take place. In a letter dated 9 June, the letter of 4 June was replied to, the holiday registration was maintained, and no waiver was expressly declared.
Request and opposing position
For the missed week in August, a complete replacement block of seven calendar days in the year 2026 was requested; alternatively, another complete seven-day block should be designated.
The court finds that only two weeks of holiday could still be taken, and characterises this as self-inflicted.
“self-inflicted”
Checklist item
For the review, a strict distinction must be made between party submissions, counsel's motion and the court's finding.
LawReport classification
The documents show several procedural stages: application, protective brief, super-provisional application, submissions and the subsequent precautionary decision. For the assessment, each stage must be considered separately; a party’s allegation is not a judicial finding and a later decision does not retroactively replace the record as it stood at that time.
What does not follow from that
The documented proceedings substantiate the stated applications, statements and decision-making steps. They do not, without further evidence, substantiate personal motives, bias, abuse of rights or a general unlawfulness. Such further assessments would require additional legal and factual grounds.
Further articles