Key legal question
Whether the appeal to the Federal Supreme Court sufficiently explained how the cantonal judgment violated federal law under Art. 42(2) LTF
Extracted holding
The appellant did not show any violation of law; the appeal merely addressed the merits and did not challenge the inadmissibility reasoning.
Extracted reasoning
The cantonal court had ruled only on late payment of the cost advance. Arguments about the need for a driving license and the underlying withdrawal measure were irrelevant. No force majeure or excusable impediment was shown for the late payment.