BGH: Omission of reasoning for non-admission of revision where clarification of admissibility prerequisites is not served
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe BGH 7th Civil Senate dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against the non-authorization of revision, leaving the decision of the Koblenz Regional Court of Appeal in force. The dispute concerned a civil matter where the plaintiff challenged the lower court's refusal to admit an appeal to the Federal Court of Justice, with a disputed value capped at €35,000. The court applied § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, declining to provide a substantive legal reasoning on the grounds that such an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for the admission of revision, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings pursuant to § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO; BGH: Omission of reasoning for non-admission of revision where clarification of admissibility prerequisites is not served: The dispute concerned a civil matter where the plaintiff challenged the lower court's refusal to admit an appeal to the Federal Court of Justice, with a disputed value capped at €35,000. The court applied § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, declining to provide a substantive legal reasoning on the grounds that such an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for the admission of revision, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings pursuant to § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertBasis for omitting the written reasoning as it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admission of revision.
Provision applied to order the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde des Klägers gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Beschluss des 2. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Koblenz vom 2. Oktober 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).
Der Kläger trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Gegenstandswert: bis 35.000 €
Pamp Halfmeier Jurgeleit
Graßnack Hannamann