Key legal question
Whether the public-law appeal was sufficiently reasoned to challenge the cantonal refusal of provisional measures.
Extracted holding
No. The appellant only made appellate-style criticism and did not specifically and clearly attack the cantonal reasoning on lack of urgency.
Extracted reasoning
Under Art. 90(1)(b) OJ, constitutional grievances must be set out clearly and specifically. The appellant did not address the decisive finding that no urgent need for protection was shown.