Admission of revision complaint and omission of written reasoning under ZPO
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against the non-admission of revision by the Munich Higher Regional Court, leaving the lower court's decision in force and ordering the plaintiff to bear the procedural costs. The dispute involved a civil matter with a subject value of approximately €136,848, where the plaintiff challenged the Higher Regional Court's refusal to allow an appeal to the Supreme Court. The BGH declined to provide a written rationale, invoking § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, on the basis that such an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the criteria for admitting a revision, thereby upholding the procedural bar established by the prior instance.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Admission of revision complaint and omission of written reasoning under ZPO: The dispute involved a civil matter with a subject value of approximately €136,848, where the plaintiff challenged the Higher Regional Court's refusal to allow an appeal to the Supreme Court. The BGH declined to provide a written rationale, invoking § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, on the basis that such an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the criteria for admitting a revision, thereby upholding the procedural bar established by the prior instance.
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 because it would not contribute to clarifying the requirements for admitting 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 28. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts München vom 3. Februar 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 Klägerin trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Gegenstandswert: 136.847,97 €
Pamp Halfmeier Sacher
Borris Brenneisen