Key legal question
Whether the subsidiary constitutional complaint was admissible against the cantonal decision.
Extracted holding
The complaint was inadmissible because only the challenged Obergericht decision could be attacked, and the filing did not sufficiently and specifically allege constitutional violations.
Extracted reasoning
The court held that the complaint failed to meet the strict reasoning requirements of Art. 116 and 117 BGG in conjunction with Art. 106(2) BGG and did not address the decisive cantonal reasoning. Parts directed against other decisions were also inadmissible.