Complaint against non-admission of revision for civil appeal; waiver of reasoning under § 544(6) sentence 2 ZPO where no contribution to case law is expected.
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Civil Justice (BGH) rejected the defendant's complaint against the non-admission of revision in the appellate judgment, resulting in the lower court's decision remaining in force; the defendant bears the costs of the complaint proceedings, with the subject matter value set at €45,410. This procedural order concerns the defendant's unsuccessful challenge to the Oberlandesgericht Dresden's refusal to grant leave for a second appeal, a determination made without a written reasoning because such an explanation was deemed not conducive to clarifying the legal prerequisites for admitting a revision. The decisive legal basis for this dismissal and the waiver of reasoning is § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, while the cost allocation follows § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Complaint against non-admission of revision for civil appeal; waiver of reasoning under § 544(6) sentence 2 ZPO where no contribution to case law is expected: This procedural order concerns the defendant's unsuccessful challenge to the Oberlandesgericht Dresden's refusal to grant leave for a second appeal, a determination made without a written reasoning because such an explanation was deemed not conducive to clarifying the legal prerequisites for admitting a revision. The decisive legal basis for this dismissal and the waiver of reasoning is § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, while the cost allocation follows § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO.
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 rejection of the complaint.
Cited in the dispositive to order the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde der Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 13. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Dresden vom 16. Juli 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 Beklagte trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Gegenstandswert: 45.410 €
Pamp Halfmeier Jurgeleit
Graßnack Sacher