Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 58/22 ECLI:DE:BGH:2022:240822BVIIZR58.22.0 KI-generiert

Late substantiation of complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544(4), § 97(1) ZPO

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 58/22
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Nichteintreten / Unzulässig (Inadmissible)
Kostenauflage zulasten Beschwerdeführer/in
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Federal Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against the non-admission of revision, upholding the procedural order of the Munich Higher Regional Court in Augsburg; consequently, the lower instance decision remains in force. The dispute concerned a civil matter with a subject value not exceeding €35,000, where the plaintiff challenged the procedural decision to deny admission of an appeal to the supreme court. The dismissal was based strictly on procedural grounds, as the complaint was not substantiated within the statutory deadline, pursuant to Sections 544(4) and 97(1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 544 Abs. 4 ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Late substantiation of complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544(4), § 97(1) ZPO: The dispute concerned a civil matter with a subject value not exceeding €35,000, where the plaintiff challenged the procedural decision to deny admission of an appeal to the supreme court. The dismissal was based strictly on procedural grounds, as the complaint was not substantiated within the statutory deadline, pursuant to Sections 544(4) and 97(1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Streitgegenstand prozessuale Revision Zivilprozessordnung gesetzliche Frist verspätete Einreichung von Urkunden E-Justice

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 544 Abs. 4 ZPO
Cited as the primary procedural basis for rejecting the complaint due to failure to meet the deadline for substantiation.
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Cited to establish the temporal requirement for the complaint to be filed within the statutory period.
KI-generiert
VII ZR 123/23
Dispute over non-admission of revision; omission of reasoning under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO
VII ZR 443/21
Dismissal of complaint against non-admission of revision without reasoning under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
VII ZR 846/21
Dismissal of complaint against non-admission of revision without substantive reasoning
VII ZR 206/22
Non-admission of revision complaint for lack of contributory value to clarifying admissibility prerequisites under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
VII ZR 130/23
Omission of reasoning on complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 544 Abs. 4 ZPO

Cited as the primary procedural basis for rejecting the complaint due to failure to meet the deadline for substantiation.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

Cited to establish the temporal requirement for the complaint to be filed within the statutory period.

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 Kläger gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Beschluss des 27. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts München in Augsburg vom 18. Februar 2022 wird auf ihre Kosten verworfen, weil die Beschwerde nicht rechtzeitig begründet worden ist (§ 544 Abs. 4, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).

Gegenstandswert: bis 35.000 €

Halfmeier Jurgeleit Graßnack

Sacher Brenneisen