Key legal question
Whether the appeal was admissible despite non-payment of the required advance on costs.
Extracted holding
The appeal was inadmissible because the appellant did not pay the advance within the additional, non-extendable time limit; service of the order was deemed effective under Article 44(2) LTF.
Extracted reasoning
After the first deadline expired, the Court granted a final deadline. The order was returned unclaimed, but deemed served seven days after the first unsuccessful delivery attempt. Since the advance still was not paid, Article 62(3) LTF required inadmissibility, handled in simplified procedure under Article 108(1)(a) and (2) LTF.