Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 132/20 ECLI:DE:BGH:2022:230622BVIIZR132.20.0 KI-generiert

Discretionary omission of reasoning in complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence, ZPO

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 132/20
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Kostenauflage zulasten Beschwerdeführer/in
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Federal Court of Justice dismissed the defendant's complaint for lack of admission of revision, thereby upholding the procedural ruling of the Higher Regional Court and leaving the lower instance judgment in force. The dispute concerned a civil litigation matter where the defendant challenged the Higher Regional Court’s decision not to permit a further appeal to the Supreme Court. The court held that a reasoned explanation was omitted under § 544(6) sentence 2, second alternative, of the Code of Civil Procedure, as such an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision. The defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings as joint and several debtors under §§ 97(1) and 100(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the subject matter value capped at €65,000.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 100 Abs. 4 ZPO, § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1, § 100 Abs. 4 ZPO; Discretionary omission of reasoning in complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence, ZPO: The dispute concerned a civil litigation matter where the defendant challenged the Higher Regional Court’s decision not to permit a further appeal to the Supreme Court. The court held that a reasoned explanation was omitted under § 544(6) sentence 2, second alternative, of the Code of Civil Procedure, as such an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision. The defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings as joint and several debtors under §§ 97(1) and 100(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the subject matter value capped at €65,000.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Revision eines Entscheids Streitgegenstand Zivilprozessordnung Ersatzstrafe Unterlassungsdelikt prozessleitende Verfügungen

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 100 Abs. 4 ZPO
Die Beklagten tragen die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens als Gesamtschuldner (§ 97 Abs. 1, § 100 Abs. 4 ZPO).
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO
Procedural rule justifying the omission of a reasoned explanation for the dismissal of the complaint, as it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision.
§ 97 Abs. 1, § 100 Abs. 4 ZPO
Basis for ordering the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings as joint and several debtors.
KI-generiert
VII ZR 339/21
Omission of reasoning on complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
VII ZR 315/21
Non-admission of revision: Omission of reasoning permitted where it would not clarify prerequisites under § 544(6) Sentence 2 ZPO
VII ZR 849/21
Refusal of revisionary appeal: discretionary omission of reasoning 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
VII ZR 127/24
Non-admission of revision: Omission of reasoning under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO where justification would not clarify admissibility prerequisites

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO

Procedural rule justifying the omission of a reasoned explanation for the dismissal of the complaint, as it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision.

§ 97 Abs. 1, § 100 Abs. 4 ZPO

Basis for ordering the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings as joint and several debtors.

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 Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Beschluss des 12. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Oldenburg vom 17. Juli 2020 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 Beklagten tragen die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens als Gesamtschuldner (§ 97 Abs. 1, § 100 Abs. 4 ZPO).

Gegenstandswert: bis 65.000 €

Pamp Kartzke Jurgeleit

Sacher Borris