Non-admission of Revision for Want of Significant Questions of Law: Waiver of Grounds Under § 544(6) Sentence 2 ZPO
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the plaintiff's complaint for leave to appeal against the non-admission of revision by the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz, ordering the plaintiff to bear the costs of the appellate proceedings, with a value in dispute of €945,600. The case concerned a civil dispute where the plaintiff sought to challenge a judgment from the 3rd Civil Senate of the Koblenz Higher Regional Court, but the BGH found no grounds for a reasoned decision as it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision. The decision was issued under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, applying the doctrine that allows the court to forgo a substantive justification when it would not enhance the legal clarity of revision admissibility criteria, thereby upholding the lower court's procedural ruling.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Non-admission of Revision for Want of Significant Questions of Law: Waiver of Grounds Under § 544(6) Sentence 2 ZPO: The case concerned a civil dispute where the plaintiff sought to challenge a judgment from the 3rd Civil Senate of the Koblenz Higher Regional Court, but the BGH found no grounds for a reasoned decision as it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision. The decision was issued under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, applying the doctrine that allows the court to forgo a substantive justification when it would not enhance the legal clarity of revision admissibility criteria, thereby upholding the lower court's procedural ruling.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertJustifies the court's decision to forgo a substantive written reason for dismissing the complaint, as it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision.
Applied to impose the costs of the complaint proceedings on the losing party, the plaintiff.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde der Klägerin gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 3. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Koblenz vom 3. Dezember 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 Klägerin trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Gegenstandswert: 945.600 €
Halfmeier Kartzke Sacher
Borris Brenneisen