Key legal question
Whether the federal complaint met the reasoning requirements for challenging the cantonal non-entry decision
Extracted holding
The complaint did not show, with reference to constitutional or federal law, that the cantonal court had erred in finding no statutory revision grounds; it therefore failed the required reasoning standard.
Extracted reasoning
The complainant merely expressed disagreement and repeated that he had not appealed earlier because he considered the judgment arbitrary. This did not demonstrate a legal entitlement to raise the omitted appeal by way of revision, nor did it satisfy the substantiation requirements of Art. 42(2) and Art. 106(2) BGG.