Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 179/22 KI-generiert

Complaint against non-admission of revision: waiver of reasoning under § 544(6) sentence 2 ZPO where it fails to clarify admission prerequisites

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 179/22
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Kostenauflage zulasten Beschwerdeführer/in
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The German Federal Court of Civil Procedure (BGH) 7th Civil Senate dismissed the defendant's complaint against the non-admission of revision, thereby upholding the judgment of the Celle Regional Court of Appeal (OLG Celle) dated September 22, 2022; the court declined to provide a substantive justification as such a reasoning would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings, with the amount in dispute set at €311,123.01. The procedural history involves a final challenge to a lower court’s decision refusing to allow the case to proceed to the highest court on civil matters. The decisive legal basis is § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2nd half-sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), which permits omitting a reasoned decision if it does not serve the purpose of explaining the criteria for admitting revision, alongside § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO regarding cost allocation.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Complaint against non-admission of revision: waiver of reasoning under § 544(6) sentence 2 ZPO where it fails to clarify admission prerequisites: The procedural history involves a final challenge to a lower court’s decision refusing to allow the case to proceed to the highest court on civil matters. The decisive legal basis is § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2nd half-sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), which permits omitting a reasoned decision if it does not serve the purpose of explaining the criteria for admitting revision, alongside § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO regarding cost allocation.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
zivilrechtliche Revision Streitgegenstand materielle Begründetheit Verfahrenskosten Landesrecht Rückzug des Revisionsgesuchs

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO
Justifies the decision to omit a substantive reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint against non-admission of revision.
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Basis for ordering the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
KI-generiert
VII ZR 229/22
Waiver of reasoning for complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544(6) Sentence 2 ZPO
VII ZR 836/21
Dispute over the waiver of reasoning for the dismissal of a complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544(6) ZPO.
VII ZR 23/24
Complaint against non-admission of revision: sufficiency of reasoning and waiver under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
VII ZR 110/24
Non-admission of revision: Waiver of reasoning under § 544(6) sentence 2 ZPO when clarification of admissibility criteria is not expected
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

Justifies the decision to omit a substantive reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint against non-admission of revision.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

Basis for ordering the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.

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 Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 5. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Celle vom 22. September 2022 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: 311.123,01 €

Pamp Halfmeier Jurgeleit

Sacher Hannamann