Non-admission of revision in civil dispute; discretion to omit reasoning on complaint against non-admission
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the defendant's complaint against the non-admission of revision, leaving the judgment of the 19th Civil Senate of the Cologne Higher Regional Court from January 15, 2021, in force. The dispute concerned a civil matter where the defendant challenged the lower court’s refusal to allow an appeal to the supreme court, but the BGH declined to provide a reasoned decision, deeming it unnecessary for clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision. The ruling was issued under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, and the defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings pursuant to § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO, with the subject matter value set at €236,479.03.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Non-admission of revision in civil dispute; discretion to omit reasoning on complaint against non-admission: The dispute concerned a civil matter where the defendant challenged the lower court’s refusal to allow an appeal to the supreme court, but the BGH declined to provide a reasoned decision, deeming it unnecessary for clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision. The ruling was issued under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, and the defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings pursuant to § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO, with the subject matter value set at €236,479.03.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertProcedural basis cited in the operative order justifying the omission of a written reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint.
Legal basis cited in the operative order for the imposition of the costs of the complaint proceedings on the defendant.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde der Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 19. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Köln vom 15. Januar 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 Beklagte trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Gegenstandswert: 236.479,03 €
Pamp Halfmeier Jurgeleit
Graßnack Borris