Key legal question
Whether the public law appeal was admissible and whether the appellant's constitutional complaints were sufficiently reasoned and exhausted at cantonal level.
Extracted holding
The public law appeal was inadmissible because it raised non-constitutional issues, lacked proper motivation, and relied on arguments not duly exhausted before the cantonal court.
Extracted reasoning
The Court held that constitutional review requires specific reasoning under Art. 90(1)(b) OJ and prior presentation of the grievances in the last cantonal instance; the appellant's submissions were largely appellatory and untimely.