Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 96/23 ECLI:DE:BGH:2024:100424BVIIZR96.23.0 KI-generiert

Non-admission of revision: waiver of reasoning where clarification of admissibility criteria is not expected

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 96/23
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 non-admission of an appeal in revision, thereby upholding the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Dresden and leaving it in force. The defendant bore the costs of the proceedings, including those associated with intervenors on the plaintiff's side, and the court declined to provide a reasoned decision pursuant to Section 544(6) Sentence 2, Second Alternative of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), as a ruling on the specific legal issues was deemed unnecessary for clarifying the general criteria for admitting a revision. The case originated from a civil dispute valued at 37,197.03 EUR, where the procedural challenge centered on whether the legal significance of the lower court's judgment met the thresholds for federal review, which it did not.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO; Non-admission of revision: waiver of reasoning where clarification of admissibility criteria is not expected: The defendant bore the costs of the proceedings, including those associated with intervenors on the plaintiff's side, and the court declined to provide a reasoned decision pursuant to Section 544(6) Sentence 2, Second Alternative of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), as a ruling on the specific legal issues was deemed unnecessary for clarifying the general criteria for admitting a revision. The case originated from a civil dispute valued at 37,197.03 EUR, where the procedural challenge centered on whether the legal significance of the lower court's judgment met the thresholds for federal review, which it did not.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
zivilrechtliche Revision verfahrensrechtliche Fragen Ersatzstrafe Verzicht auf Entscheidbegründung Rückzug des Revisionsgesuchs Revisionsgrund

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Basis for ordering the losing party to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
§ 101 Abs. 1 ZPO
Basis for ordering the losing party to bear the costs incurred by the intervenors on the prevailing side.
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO
Ground for waiving the written reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint against the non-admission of revision.
KI-generiert
VII ZR 188/23
Non-admission of revision in civil proceedings: waiver of reasoning where it would not clarify admissibility prerequisites
VII ZR 57/23
Waiver of reasoning in non-admission of revision complaint for lack of clarifying potential under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
VII ZR 844/21
Waiver of reasoning for non-admission of revision under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO
VII ZR 103/23
Waiver of reasoning for dismissal of complaint against non-admission of revision in civil proceedings
VII ZR 60/23
Non-admission of revision: waiver of reasoned decision under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

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

Ground for waiving the written reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint against the non-admission of revision.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

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

§ 101 Abs. 1 ZPO

Basis for ordering the losing party to bear the costs incurred by the intervenors on the prevailing side.

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 zu 1 gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 14. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Dresden vom 18. April 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 zu 1 trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens einschließlich der durch die Nebeninterventionen auf Seiten der Klägerin verursachten Kosten (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO).

Gegenstandswert: 37.197,03 €

Pamp Kartzke Graßnack

Borris Brenneisen