Admissibility of revision appeal in civil litigation: waiver of reasoning for non-admission under § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence, ZPO
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the defendant's complaint against the non-admission of a revision appeal, thereby upholding the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, which remains in force. The dispute concerned a civil matter where the defendant challenged the lower court's decision not to allow the case to proceed to the BGH, with a stake in controversy valued at €95,406. Relying on § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, the court determined that providing a reasoned explanation for the dismissal was unnecessary because such reasoning would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites under which a revision appeal is admissible, and it ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 101 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO; Admissibility of revision appeal in civil litigation: waiver of reasoning for non-admission under § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence, ZPO: The dispute concerned a civil matter where the defendant challenged the lower court's decision not to allow the case to proceed to the BGH, with a stake in controversy valued at €95,406. Relying on § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, the court determined that providing a reasoned explanation for the dismissal was unnecessary because such reasoning would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites under which a revision appeal is admissible, and it ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertCited in the operative order to justify the omission of a written reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint.
Cited in the operative order to determine the allocation of legal costs for the defendant and the amicus curiae parties.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde der Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 23. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Düsseldorf vom 28. Mai 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 Beklagte trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens. Die Streithelfer der Beklagten tragen ihre Kosten selbst (§ 97 Abs. 1, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Gegenstandswert: 95.406 €
Pamp Jurgeleit Sacher
Brenneisen Hannamann