Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 225/23 KI-generiert

Timely reasoning requirement for complaint against non-admission of revision

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 225/23
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Nichteintreten / Unzulässig (Inadmissible)
Kostenauflage zulasten Beschwerdeführer/in
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against the non-admission of revision, with the dismissal imposed on the plaintiff's costs, leaving the judgment of the Fourth Civil Senate of the Hanseatic High Court of Appeals in Hamburg from November 9, 2023, in force. The case involved a dispute in civil proceedings with a stake in dispute of approximately 225,623 euros, where the plaintiff challenged the lower court's refusal to permit an appeal on points of law to the BGH. The decisive legal basis for the dismissal was procedural rather than substantive, as the complaint was not reasoned within the statutory deadline, resulting in rejection under § 544(4) and § 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 544 Abs. 4 ZPO; Timely reasoning requirement for complaint against non-admission of revision: The case involved a dispute in civil proceedings with a stake in dispute of approximately 225,623 euros, where the plaintiff challenged the lower court's refusal to permit an appeal on points of law to the BGH. The decisive legal basis for the dismissal was procedural rather than substantive, as the complaint was not reasoned within the statutory deadline, resulting in rejection under § 544(4) and § 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Revision eines Entscheids gesetzliche Verfahrensfrist Zivilprozessordnung materielle Voraussetzungen gesetzliche Grundlage Rückzug des Revisionsgesuchs

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Cited in the dispositive in conjunction with § 544 Abs. 4 ZPO to establish the timeliness requirement for the reasoning of the complaint, which was not met.
§ 544 Abs. 4 ZPO
Cited in the dispositive as the primary procedural ground for rejecting the complaint against the non-admission of revision due to the failure to provide reasoning within the statutory deadline.
KI-generiert
VII ZR 95/22
Late justification of complaint against non-admission of revision
VII ZR 757/21
Dismissal of non-admission complaint for revision; waiver of reasoning under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
VII ZR 94/23
Waiver of reasoning for dismissal of complaint against non-admission of revision
VII ZR 226/22
Dismissal of complaint for non-admission of revision without reasoning under § 544(6) ZPO
VII ZR 213/22
Non-admission of revision: procedural requirements and dismissal of complaint without substantive reasoning

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 544 Abs. 4 ZPO

Cited in the dispositive as the primary procedural ground for rejecting the complaint against the non-admission of revision due to the failure to provide reasoning within the statutory deadline.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

Cited in the dispositive in conjunction with § 544 Abs. 4 ZPO to establish the timeliness requirement for the reasoning of the complaint, which was not met.

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 Klägerin gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 4. Zivilsenats des Hanseatischen Oberlandesgerichts in Hamburg vom 9. November 2023 wird auf ihre Kosten verworfen, weil die Beschwerde nicht rechtzeitig begründet worden ist (§ 544 Abs. 4, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).

Gegenstandswert: 225.623,15 €

Pamp Halfmeier Kartzke

Jurgeleit Brenneisen