Key legal question
Whether the appeal against the cantonal decision granting suspensive effect was admissible under Art. 93 LTF.
Extracted holding
The decision was an incidental decision, and the appellant failed to show an irreparable legal harm or that an immediate final decision could be rendered.
Extracted reasoning
The asserted harm was purely economic because it concerned postponing a move to Singapore for work; such damage is not irreparable under Art. 93(1)(a) LTF. Art. 93(1)(b) LTF was plainly inapplicable.