Dispute over the waiver of reasoning for the dismissal of a complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544(6) ZPO.
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) 7th Civil Senate dismissed the defendant's complaint against the non-admission of revision, thereby rejecting the appeal and leaving the judgment of the Rostock Higher Regional Court in force; the defendant bears the costs of the appellate proceedings. The case concerns a civil dispute where the defendant challenged the lower court's decision not to allow a further appeal to the federal level, with a subject matter value of €80,000. The court relied on § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) to waive the written reasoning, determining that it would not contribute to clarifying the requirements for admitting revision, and cited § 97(1) ZPO for the cost allocation.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Dispute over the waiver of reasoning for the dismissal of a complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544(6) ZPO: The case concerns a civil dispute where the defendant challenged the lower court's decision not to allow a further appeal to the federal level, with a subject matter value of €80,000. The court relied on § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) to waive the written reasoning, determining that it would not contribute to clarifying the requirements for admitting revision, and cited § 97(1) ZPO for the cost allocation.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertProvision cited to justify the omission of a written reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint against non-admission of revision.
Provision cited 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 7. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Rostock vom 6. August 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: 80.000 €
Pamp Halfmeier Sacher
Borris Brenneisen