Key legal question
Whether the constitutional subsidiary appeal was admissible despite non-payment of the advance of costs.
Extracted holding
No. The appeal was inadmissible because the required advance of costs was not paid within the deadlines set by the Court.
Extracted reasoning
After the initial order and a subsequent extension under Art. 62 para. 3 LTF, the advance still had not been paid, so non-entry was mandatory under Art. 108 para. 1 lit. a LTF.