Key legal question
Whether the filing could be treated as a constitutional complaint and admitted despite the lack of sufficient reasoning.
Extracted holding
The filing was treated as a subsidiary constitutional complaint, but it did not satisfy the mandatory reasoning requirements and therefore could not be entered into.
Extracted reasoning
Because the dispute value did not reach the threshold for a civil law appeal, only constitutional grievances could be raised. The appellant failed to identify and substantiate specific constitutional rights infringed by the cantonal court, especially by engaging with the contested reasoning as required by the BGG.