Questão jurídica principal
Whether the constitutional complaint was admissible despite non-payment of the advance on costs within the set deadline.
Decisão extraída
No. Because the complainant did not pay or duly prove timely payment of the advance within the non-extendable grace period, the Court would not enter into the complaint.
Fundamentação extraída
After prior warning under Art. 62(3) BGG, the complainant neither paid cash, nor deposited the advance at a post office counter, nor produced the required debit confirmation for a payment order. Under Art. 62(3) BGG, in conjunction with Art. 117 and Art. 108(1)(a) BGG, this required non-entry.