Rejection of complaint against non-admission of revision for lack of clarifying potential
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) rejected the plaintiff's complaint against the non-allowance of revision, upholding the decision of the Brandenburg Higher Regional Court, which means the lower court rulings remain in force and the plaintiff did not prevail in this appellate stage. The dispute concerned a civil matter with a disputed amount of 51,590.88 euros, where the plaintiff sought to challenge the lower court's refusal to permit an appeal to the Federal Court of Justice. The court dismissed the complaint without a substantive written reasoning, determining that such a justification would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for allowing revision, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO; Rejection of complaint against non-admission of revision for lack of clarifying potential: The dispute concerned a civil matter with a disputed amount of 51,590.88 euros, where the plaintiff sought to challenge the lower court's refusal to permit an appeal to the Federal Court of Justice. The court dismissed the complaint without a substantive written reasoning, determining that such a justification would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for allowing revision, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertProcedural basis cited for the decision to dispense with a substantive written reasoning for the rejection of the complaint against the non-allowance of revision.
Basis for the order that the plaintiff bears the costs of the complaint proceedings.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde der Klägerin gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Beschluss des 12. Zivilsenats des Brandenburgischen Oberlandesgerichts vom 12. November 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: 51.590,88 €
Pamp Halfmeier Sacher
Borris Brenneisen