Waiver of reasoning in complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the defendant's complaint against the non-admission of revision, leaving the judgment of the 6th Civil Senate of the Higher Regional Court of Celle dated July 3, 2023, in force, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings. The dispute concerned a civil matter where the appellate court had declined to allow an appeal to the BGH, prompting the defendant to challenge this procedural decision. The BGH applied § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO to waive a detailed reasoning, as the decision was not expected to contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision, while § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO governed the cost allocation; the object value of the proceedings was determined to be €42,764.91.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Waiver of reasoning in complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO: The dispute concerned a civil matter where the appellate court had declined to allow an appeal to the BGH, prompting the defendant to challenge this procedural decision. The BGH applied § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO to waive a detailed reasoning, as the decision was not expected to contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision, while § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO governed the cost allocation; the object value of the proceedings was determined to be €42,764.91.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertProcedural basis cited in the dispositive to justify the waiver of a detailed reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint.
Costs provision cited in the dispositive to impose the costs of the complaint proceedings on the defendant.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde der Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 6. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Celle vom 3. Juli 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: 42.764,91 €
Pamp Graßnack Borris
Brenneisen Hannamann