Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 187/22 ECLI:DE:BGH:2023:251023BVIIZR187.22.0 KI-generiert

Refusal of reasoning for non-admission of revision under § 544(6) Sentence 2 ZPO in civil proceedings

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 187/22
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Kostenauflage zulasten Beschwerdeführer/in
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The German Federal Court of Civil Procedure (BGH, 7th Civil Senate) dismissed the defendant's complaint against the non-admission of a revision appeal, thereby confirming the judgment of the Oberlandesgericht Naumburg dated August 25, 2022, and ordering the defendant to bear the costs of the appellate proceedings; the decision was issued without further reasoning as such would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision under Section 544(6) Sentence 2 ZPO. The dispute involved a civil matter valued at €221,820.14, where the defendant attempted to challenge the lower court's refusal to admit the revision, failing to meet the statutory requirements for such admission. The decisive legal basis for the dismissal was the application of Section 544(6) Sentence 2, Second Half-Sentence ZPO, which permits omitting the reasoning when it does not elucidate the conditions for revision admission, alongside Section 97(1) ZPO for cost allocation.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Refusal of reasoning for non-admission of revision under § 544(6) Sentence 2 ZPO in civil proceedings: The dispute involved a civil matter valued at €221,820.14, where the defendant attempted to challenge the lower court's refusal to admit the revision, failing to meet the statutory requirements for such admission. The decisive legal basis for the dismissal was the application of Section 544(6) Sentence 2, Second Half-Sentence ZPO, which permits omitting the reasoning when it does not elucidate the conditions for revision admission, alongside Section 97(1) ZPO for cost allocation.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
zivilrechtliche Revision Streitgegenstand gesetzliche Grundlage E-Justice Rückzug des Revisionsgesuchs Vorabentscheidungsverfahren

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO
Cited in the operative part to justify the omission of a detailed reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint.
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Cited in the operative part to impose the costs of the complaint proceedings on the defendant.
KI-generiert
VII ZR 71/20
Non-admission of revision in civil proceedings under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO without reasoned judgment
VII ZR 208/22
Non-admission of revision in civil dispute: omission of reasoning and cost allocation under § 544(6) and § 97(1) ZPO
VII ZR 7/23
Dismissal of complaint against non-admission of revision: refusal of reasoning under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO and cost allocation
VII ZR 201/23
Objection to non-admission of civil revision under § 544 ZPO; omission of reasoning permitted where it does not contribute to clarifying admission conditions
VII ZR 53/22
Denial of admission of revision in civil proceedings due to lack of contribution to legal clarification under § 544 ZPO

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO

Cited in the operative part to justify the omission of a detailed reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

Cited in the operative part to impose the costs of the complaint proceedings on the defendant.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

Die Beschwerde der Beklagten zu 1 gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 2. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Naumburg vom 25. August 2022 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 zu 1 trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).

Gegenstandswert: 221.820,14 €

Pamp Halfmeier Jurgeleit

Graßnack Borris