Whether the dispositive part of the appellate judgment of 2016-03-15 had to be rectified to include costs in favor of E.________
Yes. The omission was manifest, and E.________ had fully succeeded in the interim proceedings; D.________ was ordered to pay CHF 200 in costs.
Under Art. 334 CPC, a decision may be rectified when the dispositive part is incomplete or does not match the reasoning. Because E.________ prevailed on the suspension request, costs for those submissions had to be allocated under Arts. 95(1)(b), 104(2), and 106(1) CPC, with the amount fixed by the tariff.