BGH: Discretion to waive reasoning in non-admission of revision complaints under § 544(6) Sentence 2 No. 2 ZPO when clarification of admissibility criteria is not served
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the defendant's complaint against the non-admission of revision, leaving the judgment of the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court in force and ordering the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings. The dispute concerned a civil matter with a value in dispute of €400,000, where the defendant challenged the procedural decision to deny further appellate review. The court relied on § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, explicitly waiving the written reasons for the decision because such an explanation was deemed incapable of contributing to the clarification of the conditions under which revision must be admitted.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; BGH: Discretion to waive reasoning in non-admission of revision complaints under § 544(6) Sentence 2 No. 2 ZPO when clarification of admissibility criteria is not served: The dispute concerned a civil matter with a value in dispute of €400,000, where the defendant challenged the procedural decision to deny further appellate review. The court relied on § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, explicitly waiving the written reasons for the decision because such an explanation was deemed incapable of contributing to the clarification of the conditions under which revision must be admitted.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertCited to justify the waiver of written reasoning because the explanation would not contribute to clarifying the conditions for admitting revision.
Basis for ordering the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde des Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 4. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Karlsruhe in Freiburg vom 4. 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).
Der Beklagte trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Gegenstandswert: 400.000 €
Pamp Halfmeier Sacher
Borris Brenneisen