Whether the letter of 14 May 2009 could be treated as a valid appeal against the pronouncement of 7 May 2009.
The letter could not be treated as a valid appeal because it contained no recognizable appeal request or conclusions and did not comply with the formal requirements.
After the court invited the appellant to clarify whether the letter was meant as an appeal and to rewrite it with the required conclusions, no compliant submission was filed within the set deadline. The requirements of Art. 461 CPC were therefore not met.