Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 138/23 KI-generiert

Non-allowance of revision: waiver of reasoning where it does not clarify admissibility prerequisites

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 138/23
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Kostenauflage zulasten Beschwerdeführer/in
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the defendant's complaint against the non-allowance of revision, thereby upholding the appellate court's judgment and leaving it in final force; the defendant bears the costs of the proceedings, and the amount in dispute is set at €48,219.80. The case involved a civil dispute where the defendant sought to challenge the decision of the Regional Court of Appeal in Zweibrücken, which had refused to allow an appeal to the BGH. The BGH declined to provide a substantive legal justification for its dismissal, expressly noting that a reasoning would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision. The decisive legal basis for the court's action and the waiver of reasoning is Section 544(6) Sentence 2, Second Half-Sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), which permits such a waiver when the explanation would not aid in clarifying the conditions for revision admissibility.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Non-allowance of revision: waiver of reasoning where it does not clarify admissibility prerequisites: The case involved a civil dispute where the defendant sought to challenge the decision of the Regional Court of Appeal in Zweibrücken, which had refused to allow an appeal to the BGH. The BGH declined to provide a substantive legal justification for its dismissal, expressly noting that a reasoning would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision. The decisive legal basis for the court's action and the waiver of reasoning is Section 544(6) Sentence 2, Second Half-Sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), which permits such a waiver when the explanation would not aid in clarifying the conditions for revision admissibility.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Revisionsverfahren materielle Begründetheit Zivilprozessordnung Verzicht auf Entscheidbegründung Verfahren um unentgeltliche Rechtspflege Verletzung wesentlicher Formvorschriften

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO
Cited as the basis for omitting the legal reasoning in the decision because it would not contribute to clarifying the conditions for admitting a revision.
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Cited to order the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
KI-generiert
VII ZR 188/23
Non-admission of revision in civil proceedings: waiver of reasoning where it would not clarify admissibility prerequisites
VII ZR 6/24
Waiver of written justification for non-admission of revision where reasoning would not clarify admissibility prerequisites
VII ZR 96/23
Non-admission of revision: waiver of reasoning where clarification of admissibility criteria is not expected
VII ZR 467/21
Admissibility of revision in non-allowance proceedings and the scope of mandatory judicial reasoning under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
VII ZR 880/21
Non-admission of Revision: waiver of justification under § 544(6) ZPO

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

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

Cited as the basis for omitting the legal reasoning in the decision because it would not contribute to clarifying the conditions for admitting a revision.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

Cited to order 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 des Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 5. Zivilsenats des Pfälzischen Oberlandesgerichts in Zweibrücken vom 13. Juni 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).

Der Beklagte trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).

Gegenstandswert: 48.219,80 €

Pamp Halfmeier Kartzke

Graßnack Brenneisen