Key legal question
Admissibility of the constitutional complaint despite the prior cantonal non-entry decision
Extracted holding
The complaint was inadmissible because the appellant lacked a legally protected interest: the cantonal court had already issued a non-entry decision before the federal filing, so annulment of the challenged cost-advance order could no longer affect the outcome.
Extracted reasoning
Under Art. 115 lit. b BGG, standing requires a legally protected interest in having the decision set aside or amended. Since the cantonal appeal had already been dismissed for failure to pay the advance, the federal complaint against the advance order was incapable of altering the situation. The appellant could, however, challenge the non-entry decision separately within the deadline.