Denial of leave to file an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court in a dispute with a value of 617,829.67 euros
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against the denial of leave to appeal, thereby rejecting the plaintiff's attempt to bring the case before the BGH and leaving the appellate court's decision in force; the plaintiff was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings. This procedural decision arose from a dispute where the plaintiff challenged the Oberlandesgericht Hamm's refusal to permit revision, with the case involving a monetary value of 617,829.67 euros. The court declined to provide a substantive written justification for the dismissal, applying § 544(6) sentence 2 second half-sentence ZPO, on the grounds that an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Denial of leave to file an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court in a dispute with a value of 617,829.67 euros: This procedural decision arose from a dispute where the plaintiff challenged the Oberlandesgericht Hamm's refusal to permit revision, with the case involving a monetary value of 617,829.67 euros. The court declined to provide a substantive written justification for the dismissal, applying § 544(6) sentence 2 second half-sentence ZPO, on the grounds that an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertCited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a written reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint against the denial of revision.
Cited in the dispositive to order the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde der Klägerin gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Beschluss des 24. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Hamm vom 15. Juni 2021 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: 617.829,67 €
Pamp Kartzke Jurgeleit
Sacher Brenneisen