Dispute over non-admission of revision regarding a financial claim, focusing on the conditions for permitting appeal and the waiver of reasoned decision under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO.
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiff's complaint regarding the refusal to permit an appeal to the court of revision, thereby affirming the prior appellate judgment and leaving the defendant as the prevailing party. The dispute, which concerned a financial claim valued at €346,471.96, proceeded through the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main to the BGH on a non-admission challenge, where the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient grounds for reviewing the factual findings. The decisive legal basis for the decision was § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, under which the court dispensed with a reasoned explanation because it would not contribute to clarifying the requirements for permitting an appeal, resulting in the plaintiff bearing the costs of the proceedings pursuant to § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Dispute over non-admission of revision regarding a financial claim, focusing on the conditions for permitting appeal and the waiver of reasoned decision under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO: The dispute, which concerned a financial claim valued at €346,471.96, proceeded through the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main to the BGH on a non-admission challenge, where the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient grounds for reviewing the factual findings. The decisive legal basis for the decision was § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, under which the court dispensed with a reasoned explanation because it would not contribute to clarifying the requirements for permitting an appeal, resulting in the plaintiff bearing the costs of the proceedings pursuant to § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertProcedural rule justifying the omission of a reasoned explanation because it would not contribute to clarifying the conditions for permitting an appeal.
Basis for ordering the losing party to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde des Klägers gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 22. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Frankfurt am Main mit Sitz in Darmstadt vom 11. Mai 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 Kläger trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Gegenstandswert: 346.471,96 €
Pamp Kartzke Graßnack
Sacher Borris