Whether the challenge to the first-instance decision on expert remuneration was admissible as an appeal or only as a recourse under CPC Art. 184(3).
The only available remedy was recourse under Arts. 319 ff. CPC; an appeal was excluded regardless of the amount in dispute.
The court followed the majority doctrine and prior chamber case law, holding that Art. 184(3) CPC refers to the recourse procedure. The contrary view was isolated and not followed. The lower-court remedy notice also expressly mentioned recourse under Arts. 319 ff. CPC.