Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 97/23 KI-generiert

Refusal to admit revision: BGH denies detailed reasoning when clarification of admissibility prerequisites is unattainable

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 97/23
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Kostenauflage zulasten Beschwerdeführer/in
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The German Federal Court of Civil Procedure (BGH) dismissed the defendant's complaint against the refusal to admit revision, leaving the judgment of the 14th Civil Senate of the Dresden Higher Regional Court dated May 9, 2023, in force; the defendant bears the costs of the complaint proceedings, and the court abstained from a detailed reasoning under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO as such an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision. The dispute involved a civil case with a subject matter value of €22,360, where the defendant sought to challenge the appellate court's refusal to permit further review, but the BGH found no grounds to overturn the lower court's procedural decision, reaffirming the strict statutory standards for admitting revision in civil matters.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Refusal to admit revision: BGH denies detailed reasoning when clarification of admissibility prerequisites is unattainable: 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO as such an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision. The dispute involved a civil case with a subject matter value of €22,360, where the defendant sought to challenge the appellate court's refusal to permit further review, but the BGH found no grounds to overturn the lower court's procedural decision, reaffirming the strict statutory standards for admitting revision in civil matters.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
zivilrechtliche Revision Streitgegenstand gesetzliche Voraussetzungen Verfahrensüberprüfung Zeugnisverweigerungsrecht Rückzug des Revisionsgesuchs

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO
Procedural basis for abstaining from a detailed written reasoning because it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting the appeal.
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Basis for ordering the unsuccessful party to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
KI-generiert
VII ZR 88/22
Non-admission of revision: BGH refuses reasoned decision under § 544(6) No. 2 ZPO where clarification of admissibility prerequisites is not served
VII ZR 61/22
BGH leaves non-admission of revision without reasoning where explanation would not clarify admissibility prerequisites
VII ZR 30/22
BGH declines to write reasons for dismissing revision non-admission complaint where reasoning would not clarify admissibility prerequisites
VII ZR 159/24
BGH: Omission of reasoning for non-admission of revision where clarification of admissibility prerequisites is not served
VII ZR 198/22
Non-admission of revision for lack of clarification of admission prerequisites

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

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

Procedural basis for abstaining from a detailed written reasoning because it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting the appeal.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

Basis for ordering the unsuccessful party to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.

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 Urteil des 14. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Dresden vom 9. Mai 2023 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: 22.360 €

Pamp Kartzke Jurgeleit

Borris Brenneisen