Driving License Withdrawal Appeal Dismissed for Non-Payment of Cost Advance

The reasoning mentions this article to exclude the duty to set a deadline (Nachfristansetzung).

The reasoning mentions this article in relation to the non-applicability of the duty to set a deadline for the cost deposit.

This provision, which corresponds to Art. 66 Abs. 1 OG regarding costs, is implicitly applied by rendering order 2 imposing the court fee, even though the text cited Art. 66 al. 1 OG in the case text, the output rule requests provisions cited *actually used in the final orders*. Since the decision uses 'Im Verfahren nach Art. 36a OG' and order 2 states 'Die Gerichtsgebühr von Fr. 500.-- wird dem Beschwerdeführer auferlegt', which is governed by procedural cost rules, and the reasoning explicitly mentioned Art. 62 Abs. 3 BGG and Art. 132 Abs. 1 BGG, I must look closely at the operative part (Dispositiv). The operative part only cites Art. 36a OG. However, standard Swiss Federal Tribunal procedure (especially when costs are imposed, as in order 2) requires citing the relevant cost provision (Art. 66 for the BGG era). Since I must strictly adhere to what is *explicitly cited in the numbered orders*, and only 'Art. 36a OG' is cited immediately before them, I will re-evaluate. The dispositive orders are 1, 2, and 3. None of these orders explicitly cite legal provisions. Therefore, I must rely on the procedural context mentioned right before the orders, or extract the closest relevant provision if cost/procedural rules are universally implied in certain orders. Given the strict instruction: 'Include a provision **only if it is explicitly cited in the dispositive (the numbered orders at the end of the decision).**', and seeing no explicit mention of a cost article in orders 1, 2, or 3, I can only list the procedural rule applied implicitly or explicitly just before the orders, which is Art. 36a OG. The reasoning cites BGG articles, while the operative part cites OG articles. I must choose those explicitly appearing in the grounds or explicitly governing the orders. The ruling states 'Demnach erkennt das Bundesgericht im Verfahren nach Art. 36a OG:'. This implies Art. 36a OG governs the entire ruling process, including order 1 (non-admission). I will stick to explicit citations in the reasoning leading directly to the ruling, or within the ruling itself. Since cost articles (Art. 66) are not mentioned in the final orders, they are excluded based on the strict criteria.