Waiver of reasoning for dismissed complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the defendant's complaint against the non-admission of appeal, thereby upholding the final judgment of the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court from March 1, 2024, which remains in force. The dispute involved a civil law claim with a subject matter value of approximately €1.42 million, where the defendant challenged the admissibility of the revision appeal following the lower court's refusal to accept it for review. The court ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings and explicitly declined to provide a written reasoning, citing that such an explanation would not contribute to the clarification of the prerequisites for admitting a revision under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Waiver of reasoning for dismissed complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO: The dispute involved a civil law claim with a subject matter value of approximately €1.42 million, where the defendant challenged the admissibility of the revision appeal following the lower court's refusal to accept it for review. The court ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings and explicitly declined to provide a written reasoning, citing that such an explanation would not contribute to the clarification of the prerequisites for admitting a revision under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertLegal basis cited in the decision order for waiving the written reasoning because it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision.
Provision cited for the order that the defendant bears the costs of the complaint proceedings.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde der Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 22. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Düsseldorf vom 1. März 2024 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: 1.423.036,98 €
Pamp Jurgeleit Graßnack
Sacher Borris