Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 885/21 ECLI:DE:BGH:2022:010622BVIIZR885.21.0 KI-generiert

Rejection of leave to appeal: Dispensing with reasoning when clarification of revision prerequisites is impossible

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 885/21
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Kostenauflage zulasten Beschwerdeführer/in
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) rejected the plaintiff's complaint for leave to appeal against the non-admission of a civil appeal, leaving the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Rostock of 12 November 2021 in force; the plaintiff bears the costs of the complaint proceedings, and the court dispensed with a written reasoning pursuant to § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence ZPO. The dispute concerned a civil monetary claim with an amount in controversy of up to 25,000 EUR, where the plaintiff attempted to challenge the lower court's refusal to admit the highest instance appeal. The decisive legal basis was the procedural threshold for admitting a revision in civil matters, where the court determined that providing a detailed reasoning would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for such admission.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 101 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Rejection of leave to appeal: Dispensing with reasoning when clarification of revision prerequisites is impossible: The dispute concerned a civil monetary claim with an amount in controversy of up to 25,000 EUR, where the plaintiff attempted to challenge the lower court's refusal to admit the highest instance appeal. The decisive legal basis was the procedural threshold for admitting a revision in civil matters, where the court determined that providing a detailed reasoning would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for such admission.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Revision eines Entscheids Streitgegenstand Beschwerdelegitimation prozessuale Einreden untauglicher Versuch Verfahrenskosten

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 101 Abs. 1 ZPO
Provision cited in the dispositive to include the costs caused by the auxiliary intervention on the defendant's side in the cost order.
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO
Basis for dispensing with a written reasoning for the rejection of the complaint, as the justification would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision.
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Provision cited in the dispositive to allocate the costs of the complaint proceedings to the unsuccessful plaintiff.
KI-generiert
VII ZR 33/23
Waiver of reasoning for dismissal of complaint against denial of leave to appeal for revision under § 544(6) ZPO
VII ZR 118/21
Denial of leave to appeal without reasoned justification under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
VII ZR 28/25
Denial of leave to appeal: Waiver of reasoning under § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence ZPO where clarification of admissibility prerequisites is not contributed
VII ZR 76/23
Waiver of reasoning for leave to appeal revision in civil dispute
VII ZR 57/23
Waiver of reasoning in non-admission of revision complaint for lack of clarifying potential under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO

Basis for dispensing with a written reasoning for the rejection of the complaint, as the justification would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

Provision cited in the dispositive to allocate the costs of the complaint proceedings to the unsuccessful plaintiff.

§ 101 Abs. 1 ZPO

Provision cited in the dispositive to include the costs caused by the auxiliary intervention on the defendant's side in the cost order.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

Die Beschwerde der Klägerin gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 7. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Rostock vom 12. November 2021 wird zurückgewiesen.

Von einer Begründung wird abgesehen, weil sie nicht geeignet wäre, zur Klärung der Voraussetzungen beizutragen, unter denen eine Revision zuzulassen ist (§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO).

Die Klägerin trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens einschließlich der durch die Nebenintervention auf Beklagtenseite verursachten Kosten (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO).

Gegenstandswert: bis 25.000 €

Pamp Kartzke Graßnack

Borris Brenneisen