Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 177/22 ECLI:DE:BGH:2023:221123BVIIZR177.22.0 KI-generiert

Dismissal of non-admission complaint where reasoning omission is justified by irrelevance to clarifying revision admission criteria

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 177/22
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 dismissed the defendant's non-admission complaint against the refusal to allow an appeal on points of law, thereby upholding the lower appellate court's decision that remains in force. The dispute concerned a civil matter where the defendant challenged the admissibility of a revision appeal before the Oberlandesgericht, which was subsequently appealed to the BGH. The court rejected the complaint without providing substantive reasoning, applying the doctrine that such an explanation is unnecessary when it would not contribute to clarifying the conditions for admitting a revision under Section 544(6), second sentence, of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), and ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings, including costs arising from the plaintiff's auxiliary intervention.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 101 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Dismissal of non-admission complaint where reasoning omission is justified by irrelevance to clarifying revision admission criteria: The dispute concerned a civil matter where the defendant challenged the admissibility of a revision appeal before the Oberlandesgericht, which was subsequently appealed to the BGH. The court rejected the complaint without providing substantive reasoning, applying the doctrine that such an explanation is unnecessary when it would not contribute to clarifying the conditions for admitting a revision under Section 544(6), second sentence, of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), and ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings, including costs arising from the plaintiff's auxiliary intervention.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Streitgegenstand Revisionsverfahren Zivilprozessordnung Begründung in der Sache Verletzung der Begründungspflicht Unterlassungsdelikt

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 101 Abs. 1 ZPO
Applied to assign the costs resulting from the auxiliary intervention on the plaintiff's side to the defendant.
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO
Cited as the basis for omitting the written reasoning for the dismissal of the non-admission complaint.
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Applied to determine that the defendant must bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
KI-generiert
VII ZR 226/22
Dismissal of complaint for non-admission of revision without reasoning under § 544(6) ZPO
VII ZR 884/21
Denial of reasoning for dismissal of non-admission complaint under § 544(6)(2) ZPO
VII ZR 160/24
Complaint against refusal to admit revision: omission of reasoning permitted where it does not contribute to clarifying admission criteria
VII ZR 1/22
Dismissal of non-admission complaint where justification omitted to avoid clarifying revision prerequisites under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO
VII ZR 822/21
Omission of reasoning for non-admission of revision complaint under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

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

Cited as the basis for omitting the written reasoning for the dismissal of the non-admission complaint.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

Applied to determine that the defendant must bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.

§ 101 Abs. 1 ZPO

Applied to assign the costs resulting from the auxiliary intervention on the plaintiff's side to the defendant.

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 3. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Bamberg vom 13. September 2022 in der berichtigten Fassung vom 29. November 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 Beklagte trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens einschließlich der durch die Nebenintervention auf Seiten des Klägers verursachten Kosten (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO).

Gegenstandswert: 29.624,57 €

Pamp Halfmeier Kartzke

Graßnack Borris