Non-admission of revision complaint in civil proceedings; waiver of reasoning under § 544 (6) ZPO
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiff's complaint for lack of admission of revision against the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Dresden, leaving the lower court's decision in force and ordering the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings. The dispute involved a civil matter where the plaintiff sought to challenge the higher regional court's decision on the subject matter value of €80,505.74, but failed to demonstrate significant legal questions justifying a third-instance review. The dismissal was issued without a substantive reasoning because such an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision, based on the procedural doctrine found in § 544 (6) sentence 2, second half-sentence ZPO.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Non-admission of revision complaint in civil proceedings; waiver of reasoning under § 544 (6) ZPO: The dispute involved a civil matter where the plaintiff sought to challenge the higher regional court's decision on the subject matter value of €80,505.74, but failed to demonstrate significant legal questions justifying a third-instance review. The dismissal was issued without a substantive reasoning because such an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision, based on the procedural doctrine found in § 544 (6) sentence 2, second half-sentence ZPO.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertProcedural provision cited to justify the omission of a reasoned decision because it would not contribute to clarifying the conditions for admitting revision.
Basis for ordering the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde der Klägerin gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 22. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Dresden vom 25. März 2022 in der Fassung des Berichtigungsbeschlusses vom 15. Juni 2022 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: 80.505,74 €
Pamp Kartzke Jurgeleit
Graßnack Sacher