Non-admission of revision: Omission of reasoning in complaint against non-admission
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice (BGH) 7th Civil Senate dismissed the defendant’s complaint against the non-admission of the appeal on points of law, thereby leaving the decision of the Munich Higher Regional Court (dated August 16, 2022) in force; the defendant bore the costs of the proceedings, and the amount in dispute was set at €143,041.61. The dispute concerned a civil matter where the defendant sought to challenge the lower court’s refusal to permit revision, but the court declined to provide a detailed written justification, citing that an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the conditions for admitting an appeal under the relevant procedural framework. The decisive legal basis was Section 544(6) Sentence 2, second half-sentence of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), which permits the omission of a detailed reasoning in non-admission decisions, along with Section 97(1) ZPO for the allocation of costs.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Non-admission of revision: Omission of reasoning in complaint against non-admission: The dispute concerned a civil matter where the defendant sought to challenge the lower court’s refusal to permit revision, but the court declined to provide a detailed written justification, citing that an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the conditions for admitting an appeal under the relevant procedural framework. The decisive legal basis was Section 544(6) Sentence 2, second half-sentence of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), which permits the omission of a detailed reasoning in non-admission decisions, along with Section 97(1) ZPO for the allocation of costs.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertCited to justify the omission of a written reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint against non-admission of revision.
Cited to assign the costs of the complaint proceedings to the defendant.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde des Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Beschluss des 28. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts München vom 16. 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).
Der Beklagte trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Gegenstandswert: 143.041,61 €
Pamp Kartzke Graßnack
Borris Brenneisen