Dismissal of non-admission of revision without written justification: application of § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against the non-allowance of revision, thereby upholding the appellate court's prior decision and rendering it final, with the plaintiff ordered to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings. This procedural ruling concerned a civil dispute where the plaintiff sought to challenge the refusal of the Intermediate Court of Appeal to permit an appeal on points of law, a matter identified by a disputed value of €145,047.49. The BGH based its decision on § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, waiving the requirement for a written justification as it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision, and applied § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO to allocate litigation costs.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Dismissal of non-admission of revision without written justification: application of § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO: This procedural ruling concerned a civil dispute where the plaintiff sought to challenge the refusal of the Intermediate Court of Appeal to permit an appeal on points of law, a matter identified by a disputed value of €145,047.49. The BGH based its decision on § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, waiving the requirement for a written justification as it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision, and applied § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO to allocate litigation costs.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertBasis for waiving the written justification for the dismissal of the complaint, as a justification would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision.
Basis for ordering the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde der Klägerin gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Beschluss des 3. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Bamberg vom 14. April 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 (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Gegenstandswert: 145.047,49 €
Pamp Kartzke Jurgeleit
Graßnack Brenneisen