Non-admission of revision: omission of reasoning under § 544(6) sentence 2 ZPO when clarification of admissibility prerequisites is unnecessary
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) rejected the plaintiff's appeal against the non-admission of a further appeal on points of law, thereby upholding the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Bamberg and ordering the plaintiff to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. The dispute involved a civil action where the plaintiff sought to have the revision procedure admitted but failed to demonstrate its admissibility under statutory requirements. The court declined to provide a detailed written reasoning for the rejection, invoking § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence, of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), on the grounds that such an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO; Non-admission of revision: omission of reasoning under § 544(6) sentence 2 ZPO when clarification of admissibility prerequisites is unnecessary: The dispute involved a civil action where the plaintiff sought to have the revision procedure admitted but failed to demonstrate its admissibility under statutory requirements. The court declined to provide a detailed written reasoning for the rejection, invoking § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence, of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), on the grounds that such an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertLegal basis cited for the decision to omit the written reasoning for rejecting the complaint against the non-admission of revision.
Provision cited to order the appellant to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde der Klägerin gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 12. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Bamberg vom 20. Juli 2023 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: 48.193,50 €
Pamp Jurgeleit Sacher
Brenneisen Hannamann