Waiver of reasoning for dismissal of complaint for non-admission of revision
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe German Federal Court of Civil Procedure (BGH) dismissed the defendant's complaint for leave to appeal, thereby upholding the lower court's refusal to grant leave for revision and leaving the judgment of the Cologne Higher Regional Court in force; the defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings. The dispute arose from a civil litigation matter, with a disputed value of €23,224.85, wherein the defendant challenged the appellate court's decision not to admit the case for further review. The court applied § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), determining that a written justification for the dismissal was unnecessary because such reasoning would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Waiver of reasoning for dismissal of complaint for non-admission of revision: The dispute arose from a civil litigation matter, with a disputed value of €23,224.85, wherein the defendant challenged the appellate court's decision not to admit the case for further review. The court applied § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), determining that a written justification for the dismissal was unnecessary because such reasoning would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertJustifies the omission of a written reasoning for the dismissal because it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision.
Imposes the costs of the complaint proceedings on the defendant as the unsuccessful party.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde des Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Beschluss des 18. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Köln vom 20. 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).
Der Beklagte trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Gegenstandswert: 23.224,85 €
Pamp Kartzke Jurgeleit
Sacher Brenneisen