Key legal question
Whether the civil-law appeal was sufficiently reasoned to be admissible before the Federal Supreme Court.
Extracted holding
No; the appeal was manifestly inadmissible because the submissions were obscure, targeted the merits rather than the jurisdictional non-entry decision, and did not specifically show how the cantonal ruling violated the law.
Extracted reasoning
Art. 42 LTF requires clear conclusions and reasoning; bare citation of constitutional or legal norms is insufficient, and constitutional grievances must be specifically invoked and substantiated. The appellant failed to address the cantonal court's reasoning that it lacked jurisdiction.