Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 200/22 ECLI:DE:BGH:2023:081123BVIIZR200.22.0 KI-generiert

Non-acceptance of revision; waiver of justification where clarification of admissibility criteria is unattainable

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 200/22
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 Justice dismissed the defendant's complaint for non-acceptance of revision against the decision of the Bamberg Regional Court of Appeal, thereby upholding the lower court's refusal to allow the appeal to the highest court and leaving the judgment in force against the defendant. The dispute involved a civil matter concerning a claim with a subject matter value of €63,180.50, where the defendant challenged the non-acceptance of the revisionary instance. The ruling was based on § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which the court dispensed with a detailed written justification because one would not contribute to clarifying the conditions for the acceptance of revision, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings pursuant to § 97(1) ZPO.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Non-acceptance of revision; waiver of justification where clarification of admissibility criteria is unattainable: The dispute involved a civil matter concerning a claim with a subject matter value of €63,180.50, where the defendant challenged the non-acceptance of the revisionary instance. The ruling was based on § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which the court dispensed with a detailed written justification because one would not contribute to clarifying the conditions for the acceptance of revision, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings pursuant to § 97(1) ZPO.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
zivilrechtliche Revision Streitgegenstand Rückzug des Revisionsgesuchs Verzicht auf Entscheidbegründung E-Justice Werturteil

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO
Procedural provision justifying the court's decision to dispense with a written justification for the dismissal of the complaint.
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Costs provision applied to order the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
KI-generiert
VII ZR 6/24
Waiver of written justification for non-admission of revision where reasoning would not clarify admissibility prerequisites
VII ZR 13/24
Non-acceptance of revision in civil dispute; waiver of reasoning under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
VII ZR 57/23
Waiver of reasoning in non-admission of revision complaint for lack of clarifying potential under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
VII ZR 96/23
Non-admission of revision: waiver of reasoning where clarification of admissibility criteria is not expected
VII ZR 121/20
Objection to non-admission of revision: waiver of justification under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

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

Procedural provision justifying the court's decision to dispense with a written justification for the dismissal of the complaint.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

Costs provision applied to order the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.

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 des Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Beschluss des 3. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Bamberg vom 10. Oktober 2022 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: 63.180,50 €

Pamp Halfmeier Sacher

Borris Brenneisen