Rejection of complaint against non-allowance of civil revision; waiver of written reasoning under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) rejected the plaintiff's complaint against the non-allowance of revision, thereby upholding the earlier decision of the Cologne Higher Regional Court and leaving the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings. This procedural ruling concerns a civil dispute with a value in dispute of €56,934.96, where the plaintiff attempted to challenge the appellate court's refusal to permit a further appeal to the BGH. The court decided without providing a substantive written reasoning, applying § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, second alternative ZPO, on the grounds that an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the conditions under which a revision appeal is to be granted.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Rejection of complaint against non-allowance of civil revision; waiver of written reasoning under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO: This procedural ruling concerns a civil dispute with a value in dispute of €56,934.96, where the plaintiff attempted to challenge the appellate court's refusal to permit a further appeal to the BGH. The court decided without providing a substantive written reasoning, applying § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, second alternative ZPO, on the grounds that an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the conditions under which a revision appeal is to be granted.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertApplied to waive the written reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint as it would not contribute to clarifying the conditions for granting a revision.
Used 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 Beschluss des 19. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Köln vom 2. März 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 (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Gegenstandswert: 56.934,96 €
Pamp Kartzke Jurgeleit
Sacher Brenneisen