If you don't need the /22, then why are you registering an additional LIR? You can get ipv6 for your existing LIR...

BTW, legally RIPE's position seems correct. The German partnership seems very much the same as a Dutch partnership. A LIR needs to be in the name of a legal person, and a partnership is not a legal person distinct from the partners. The liability would pass through the partnership when being sued and is just a convenience when suing that's identical to all partners being named as plaintiffs.

So, if liability is severable and not joint, I'd suggest the proper way to name the entity is as "[and¦,]  [and ] trading as ". If liability is joint and not severable (ie each partner or at least the main partner is always 100% liable for the partnership), then RIPE's suggestion to roll the LIRs for the partnership into the LIR of the main partner is correct, as there is no legal difference between the partnership (as non-legal person) and the main partner (ie the main partner is the only one that may sign and is 100% liable for the partnership, so legally there's no distinction at all between a contract signed as the partnership or the legal person that is the main partner). That there is another partner in the partnership is legally irrelevant in that case.

I would guess that liability for partnerships is joint in Germany as it is in The Netherlands and RIPE is correct. It may make you angry, but RIPE didn't make the laws!