Denial of leave for revision due to lack of contribution to clarifying admissibility requirements
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe German Federal Court of Civil Procedure (BGH) rejected the plaintiff's non-acceptance complaint against the Oberlandesgericht Köln's refusal to grant leave for revision, leaving the lower court's judgment of May 8, 2023, in force in favor of the defendant. The dispute concerned a civil liability matter involving a substantial amount in controversy of approximately €434,500, where the plaintiff sought to challenge the appellate decision on legal grounds. The court dismissed the complaint without a substantive reasoning, citing § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, which permits omitting grounds when they would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs of the proceedings under § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Denial of leave for revision due to lack of contribution to clarifying admissibility requirements: The dispute concerned a civil liability matter involving a substantial amount in controversy of approximately €434,500, where the plaintiff sought to challenge the appellate decision on legal grounds. The court dismissed the complaint without a substantive reasoning, citing § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, which permits omitting grounds when they would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs of the proceedings under § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertCited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint regarding the non-acceptance of revision.
Cited in the dispositive as the basis for ordering the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde der Klägerin gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 19. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Köln vom 8. 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 Klägerin trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Gegenstandswert: 434.534,13 €
Pamp Jurgeleit Graßnack
Borris Hannamann