Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 52/23 KI-generiert

Omission of reasoning for refusal to admit civil revision under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 52/23
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 (BGH) dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against the refusal to admit a revision appeal, thereby upholding the final judgment of the Kammergericht, 27th Civil Senate, dated February 28, 2023. The dispute, valued at €173,000.80, involved a civil matter where the plaintiff sought further review by the supreme court after the appellate court denied leave to appeal; the plaintiff prevailed in the procedural sense only to the extent that the lower court's decision now stands as the final operative outcome. The court rejected the complaint without providing a detailed written reasoning, applying § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), which permits omitting a rationale when it would not contribute to clarifying the requirements for admitting a revision. Consequently, the plaintiff was ordered to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings pursuant to § 97(1) ZPO.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO; Omission of reasoning for refusal to admit civil revision under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO: The dispute, valued at €173,000.80, involved a civil matter where the plaintiff sought further review by the supreme court after the appellate court denied leave to appeal; the plaintiff prevailed in the procedural sense only to the extent that the lower court's decision now stands as the final operative outcome. The court rejected the complaint without providing a detailed written reasoning, applying § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), which permits omitting a rationale when it would not contribute to clarifying the requirements for admitting a revision. Consequently, the plaintiff was ordered to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings pursuant to § 97(1) ZPO.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
zivilrechtliche Revision Streitgegenstand Beschwerdelegitimation Prozessvoraussetzung Unterlassungsdelikt Rückzug des Revisionsgesuchs

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Basis for ordering the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO
Basis for omitting a written reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint because it would not contribute to clarifying the requirements for admitting a revision.
KI-generiert
VII ZR 54/24
Refusal to admit revision in civil litigation; omission of reasoning under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO
VII ZR 130/23
Omission of reasoning on complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO
VII ZR 150/24
Omission of reasons in complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
VII ZR 339/21
Omission of reasoning on complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
VII ZR 201/23
Objection to non-admission of civil revision under § 544 ZPO; omission of reasoning permitted where it does not contribute to clarifying admission conditions

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

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

Basis for omitting a written reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint because it would not contribute to clarifying the requirements for admitting a revision.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

Basis for ordering the plaintiff 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 der Klägerin gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 27. Zivilsenats des Kammergerichts vom 28. Februar 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: 173.000,80 €

Pamp Halfmeier Graßnack

Sacher Brenneisen