Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 56/22 ECLI:DE:BGH:2022:141222BVIIZR56.22.0 KI-generiert

Refusal to admit civil revision for lack of substantial legal significance

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 56/22
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 non-admission of revision, thereby leaving the lower court's partial and final judgment in force and ordering the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings, excluding those arising from the ancillary intervention by a co-respondent. The dispute concerned a civil matter where the defendant challenged the appellate court's refusal to grant a hearing of appeal, seeking to establish a substantial question of law. The court ruled that no detailed reasoning was required under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, as the justification would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision, effectively upholding the appellate procedural decision on the grounds of insufficient legal significance for federal review.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO; Refusal to admit civil revision for lack of substantial legal significance: The dispute concerned a civil matter where the defendant challenged the appellate court's refusal to grant a hearing of appeal, seeking to establish a substantial question of law. The court ruled that no detailed reasoning was required under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, as the justification would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision, effectively upholding the appellate procedural decision on the grounds of insufficient legal significance for federal review.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
zivilrechtliche Revision Streitgegenstand Fall des Ausschlusses Teilentscheid Verfahrensüberprüfung Begründungsdichte

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO
Serves as the procedural basis for omitting the reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint, as the court deemed it unnecessary to clarify the prerequisites for admitting revision.
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Applied to determine that the unsuccessful defendant must bear the costs of the legal remedy proceedings.
§ 101 Abs. 1 ZPO
Applied to assign the costs arising from the ancillary intervention to the auxiliary party itself.
KI-generiert
XI ZR 198/20
Admissibility of non-admission complaint in civil revision: Rejection due to lack of fundamental legal significance and absence of need for unification of jurisprudence
XI ZR 47/20
Rejection of non-admission of revision due to lack of fundamental legal significance in civil proceedings
VII ZR 87/21
Non-admission of revision in civil dispute; discretion to omit reasoning on complaint against non-admission
VII ZR 84/24
Non-admission of revision for lack of significant legal question under § 544 ZPO
XI ZR 447/19
Rejection of non-admission complaint for lack of fundamental significance in civil revision proceedings

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

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

Serves as the procedural basis for omitting the reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint, as the court deemed it unnecessary to clarify the prerequisites for admitting revision.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

Applied to determine that the unsuccessful defendant must bear the costs of the legal remedy proceedings.

§ 101 Abs. 1 ZPO

Applied to assign the costs arising from the ancillary intervention to the auxiliary party itself.

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 Teilzwischen- und Endurteil des 28. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts München vom 15. Februar 2022 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 mit Ausnahme der durch die Nebenintervention auf Beklagtenseite verursachten Kosten; diese trägt die Streithelferin selbst (§ 97 Abs. 1, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO).

Gegenstandswert: 117.082,40 €

Pamp Halfmeier Kartzke

Graßnack Borris