Whether the appeal was admissible against the first-instance ruling on non-return to better fortune
The appeal was inadmissible because the decision on admissibility or inadmissibility of the objection under Art. 265a(1) LP is not subject to appeal; only the costs ruling could be challenged, and the appellant did not do so.
Art. 265a(1) LP makes the judge's decision on the debtor's objection against return to better fortune non-appealable. The appealed filing targeted the merits and financial assessment, not the separate costs ruling mentioned in the notice of reasons.