The third seven-day block: What was requested and what was determined

The third seven-day block: What was requested and what was determined

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

The matrimonial protection decision of 17 November 2023 entitles and obliges the father to three weeks of vacation per year; no more than seven days may be taken consecutively. In the statement of 26 August a different full seven‑day block in the calendar year 2026 was again requested alternatively, and a waiver of one of the three vacation weeks was expressly excluded. The decision describes this Christma…

Source basis

What the files show

The matrimonial protection decision of 17 November 2023 entitles and obliges the father to three weeks of vacation per year; at most seven days may be taken consecutively. In the statement of 26 August, another full seven-day block in the calendar year 2026 was once again requested subsidiarily and a waiver of one of the three vacation weeks was expressly excluded.

Application and counter-position

A complete replacement block of seven calendar days in 2026 has been requested for the missed August week; alternatively, another complete seven-day block should be designated.

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

Checkpoint

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

LawReport-Classification

The conditional motion for another complete seven-day block is on file. The decision addresses the further extent of vacation entitlement by the reasoning 'only two vacation weeks left' and the exclusion of a 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 that

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

Further posts