Complaint against refusal of leave for revision dismissed without reasoning under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe defendant’s complaint against the refusal to grant leave for revision was dismissed, with no reasons given as they would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting an appeal, thereby leaving the judgment of the Cologne Higher Regional Court in force; the defendant bore the costs of the complaint proceedings, and the subject matter value was set at €50,000. This procedural decision arose from a dispute where the lower court had declined to allow the defendant to bring a case before the Federal Court of Justice. The dismissal relied on § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, which permits a court to omit a written justification when such reasons would not aid in elucidating the legal conditions for revising a judgment, and on § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO for the allocation of litigation costs.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Complaint against refusal of leave for revision dismissed without reasoning under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO: This procedural decision arose from a dispute where the lower court had declined to allow the defendant to bring a case before the Federal Court of Justice. The dismissal relied on § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, which permits a court to omit a written justification when such reasons would not aid in elucidating the legal conditions for revising a judgment, and on § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO for the allocation of litigation costs.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertCited as the procedural basis for omitting a written reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint, indicating that such reasoning would not clarify the prerequisites for admitting a revision.
Cited as the basis for ordering the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde der Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Beschluss des 17. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Köln vom 29. Oktober 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 Beklagte trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Gegenstandswert: 50.000 €
Pamp Kartzke Graßnack
Borris Brenneisen