Key legal question
Whether revision under Art. 121 let. d LTF was justified because the court allegedly overlooked a relevant document in the file.
Extracted holding
No. The omitted letter was not a decisive fact; even if considered, the court would still have declared the prior appeal inadmissible.
Extracted reasoning
The second letter was unclear, lacked conclusions and the challenged cantonal decision, and did not satisfy the motivation requirements of Arts. 116, 106(2) and 117 LTF. The same inadmissibility result would therefore have followed.