Key legal question
Admissibility of the constitutional complaint against the advance-payment order after the cantonal court had already issued a non-entry decision for non-payment.
Extracted holding
The complaint was inadmissible because the appellant lacked a legally protected interest: the cantonal non-entry decision had already been issued, so setting aside the advance-payment order could no longer affect that outcome.
Extracted reasoning
Under Art. 115 lit. b BGG, standing requires a legally protected interest in annulment or modification. Since the later cantonal non-entry decision existed already, success against the advance-payment order would not change that decision. The appellant remained free to challenge the non-entry decision separately within time.