Key legal question
Whether the subsidiary constitutional complaint was admissible despite the appellant's letter only expressing an intention to appeal.
Extracted holding
The filing did not meet the statutory motivation requirement and was manifestly inadmissible.
Extracted reasoning
For a subsidiary constitutional complaint, the value in dispute was below the threshold for an appeal in civil matters; however, the appellant's submission contained only a simple expression of intent and no reasoned challenge as required by Art. 42 para. 2 LTF. The court therefore applied the simplified non-entry procedure by analogy.