Non-admission of revision in civil proceedings: scope of § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO permitting absence of reasoned justification
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against the non-admission of revision, thereby upholding the appeal court's decision to refuse leave to appeal and leaving the lower court judgment in force, with the plaintiff ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings. The dispute involved a civil case, identified by a subject matter value of €36,012.68, where the plaintiff challenged the appellate court's refusal to admit a constitutional-level review. The decision was issued without a substantive written explanation pursuant to Section 544(6) Sentence 2, Second Half-sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), as the court determined that a reasoned explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Non-admission of revision in civil proceedings: scope of § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO permitting absence of reasoned justification: The dispute involved a civil case, identified by a subject matter value of €36,012.68, where the plaintiff challenged the appellate court's refusal to admit a constitutional-level review. The decision was issued without a substantive written explanation pursuant to Section 544(6) Sentence 2, Second Half-sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), as the court determined that a reasoned 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-generiertBasis for dispensing with a detailed written justification for the dismissal of the complaint.
Provision cited to impose the costs of the complaint proceedings on the plaintiff.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde der Klägerin gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Beschluss des 9. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts München vom 7. April 2021 in der Fassung des Berichtigungsbeschlusses vom 20. April 2021 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: 36.012,68 €
Pamp Halfmeier Kartzke
Jurgeleit Graßnack