Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 23/24 KI-generiert

Complaint against non-admission of revision: sufficiency of reasoning and waiver under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 23/24
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Kostenauflage zulasten Beschwerdeführer/in
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Federal Court of Civil Procedure (BGH) dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against the non-admission of revision, thereby upholding the final judgment of the Hamm Higher Regional Court and leaving the lower court's decision in force; the plaintiff bears the costs of the complaint proceedings, while the intervenor bears its own costs, with the amount in dispute capped at €30,000. The case involved a civil dispute where the plaintiff challenged the trial court's refusal to admit the appeal to the BGH due to alleged deficiencies in the reasoning for non-admission. Applying § 544 (6) sentence 2, second half-sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), the court waived the detailed reasoning for its decision, determining that providing one would not contribute to the clarification of the statutory prerequisites under which revision must be admitted.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO; Complaint against non-admission of revision: sufficiency of reasoning and waiver under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO: The case involved a civil dispute where the plaintiff challenged the trial court's refusal to admit the appeal to the BGH due to alleged deficiencies in the reasoning for non-admission. Applying § 544 (6) sentence 2, second half-sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), the court waived the detailed reasoning for its decision, determining that providing one would not contribute to the clarification of the statutory prerequisites under which revision must be admitted.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
zivilrechtliche Revision Begründungsdichte Verzicht auf Entscheidbegründung Rückzug des Revisionsgesuchs Verfahrensrügen Landesrecht

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO
Basis for waiving the detailed reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint against non-admission of revision, as such reasoning would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admission.
§ 97 Abs. 1, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO
Applied to impose costs on the plaintiff for the complaint proceedings and to rule that the intervenor bears its own costs.
KI-generiert
VII ZR 107/23
Waiver of reasoning in non-admission of revision complaint under § 544(6) No. 2 ZPO
VII ZR 179/22
Complaint against non-admission of revision: waiver of reasoning under § 544(6) sentence 2 ZPO where it fails to clarify admission prerequisites
VII ZR 141/22
Waiver of reasoning on non-admission of revision appeal in civil proceedings
VII ZR 110/24
Non-admission of revision: Waiver of reasoning under § 544(6) sentence 2 ZPO when clarification of admissibility criteria is not expected
VII ZR 549/21
Dismissal of complaint against non-admission of revision: waiver of justification under § 544(6) Sentence 2 ZPO

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

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

Basis for waiving the detailed reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint against non-admission of revision, as such reasoning would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admission.

§ 97 Abs. 1, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO

Applied to impose costs on the plaintiff for the complaint proceedings and to rule that the intervenor bears its own costs.

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 Klägerin gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 17. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Hamm vom 21. Dezember 2023 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 Klägerin trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens. Die Streithelferin der Klägerin trägt ihre Kosten selbst (§ 97 Abs. 1, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO).

Gegenstandswert: bis 30.000 €

Pamp Jurgeleit Graßnack

Sacher Hannamann