Statement of 26 August: The expressly requested alternative seven-day block

Statement of 26 August: The expressly requested alternative seven-day block

Source-based reconstruction. Private family members are not identified. Officeholders and professionals are mentioned only in their documented capacity.

In the statement of 26 August, a different complete seven-day block in calendar year 2026 was again requested alternatively and a waiver of one of the three vacation weeks was expressly excluded. For the missed August week, a full replacement block of seven calendar days in 2026 was requested; alternatively, a different complete seven-day block was to be designated. The decision beze…

Source basis

What the records show

In the statement dated 26 August, an alternative full seven-day block in the calendar year 2026 was again applied for, and a waiver of one of the three holiday weeks was expressly excluded. For the missed August week, a full replacement block of seven calendar days in the year 2026 was requested; alternatively, another full seven-day block should be designated.

Application and counter-position

In the statement dated 26 August another complete seven-day block in the calendar year 2026 was again alternatively requested and a waiver of one of the three holiday weeks was explicitly ruled out.

The decision explicitly does not designate this Christmas/New Year block as compensation for the missed August week, but as a second vacation week in 2026.

“A waiver of one of the three vacation weeks in 2026 is expressly not declared.”

Checkpoint

The conditional request for a different complete seven-day block does not appear as a separate item in the operative part; however, the reasoning denies any further scope of vacation or compensation.

LawReport Classification

The contingent application for a different complete seven-day block is on file. The decision addresses the further scope of vacation by the reasoning "only two vacation weeks left" and the exclusion of any claim for compensation; a separate third block does not appear in the operative part. This should be documented more precisely than the blanket assertion that an application was "ignored."

What does not follow from this

The documented proceedings substantiate the mentioned motions, statements and decision steps. They do not by themselves prove personal motives, bias, abuse of law or a general unlawfulness. Such further assessments would require additional legal and factual grounds.

Further posts