Admissibility of non-admission of revision; waiver of reasoned judgment under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe German Federal Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against the non-allowance of leave to appeal, leaving the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Dresden dated August 14, 2024, in force; the plaintiff was ordered to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings, and the subject matter amount was set at €57,429.90. The dispute concerned a civil matter where the plaintiff sought to challenge the appellate court's decision not to admit a revision, resulting in a procedural ruling on the admissibility of further judicial review. The court relied on § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence, of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) to dispense with a substantive written reasoning, as it was deemed not suitable for clarifying the requirements for allowing a revision, and on § 97(1) ZPO for the cost allocation.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Admissibility of non-admission of revision; waiver of reasoned judgment under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO: The dispute concerned a civil matter where the plaintiff sought to challenge the appellate court's decision not to admit a revision, resulting in a procedural ruling on the admissibility of further judicial review. The court relied on § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence, of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) to dispense with a substantive written reasoning, as it was deemed not suitable for clarifying the requirements for allowing a revision, and on § 97(1) ZPO for the cost allocation.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertProcedural provision cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a substantive reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint.
Cost provision cited in the dispositive to order the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde der Klägerin gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 13. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Dresden vom 14. August 2024 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: 57.429,90 €
Pamp Halfmeier Jurgeleit
Graßnack Hannamann