Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 70/23 KI-generiert

Omission of reasons in rejecting complaint against non-admission of revision

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 70/23
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) rejected the plaintiff's complaint against the non-admission of an appeal in revision, upholding the lower court's procedural decision; consequently, the judgment of the 19th Civil Senate of the Cologne Higher Regional Court dated March 15, 2023, remains in force. The dispute concerned a civil law matter where the plaintiff sought to challenge the appellate court's refusal to allow a revision based on alleged procedural deficiencies or significant legal questions. The BGH determined that a statement of reasons was unnecessary as such reasoning would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting an appeal in revision. The plaintiff was ordered to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings, and the subject matter amount was fixed at 20,530.76 euros. The decisive legal basis was § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO regarding the omission of reasons, and § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO concerning the allocation of costs.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Omission of reasons in rejecting complaint against non-admission of revision: The dispute concerned a civil law matter where the plaintiff sought to challenge the appellate court's refusal to allow a revision based on alleged procedural deficiencies or significant legal questions. The BGH determined that a statement of reasons was unnecessary as such reasoning would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting an appeal in revision. The plaintiff was ordered to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings, and the subject matter amount was fixed at 20,530.76 euros. The decisive legal basis was § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO regarding the omission of reasons, and § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO concerning the allocation of costs.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Revision eines Entscheids Streitgegenstand Begründung Unterlassungsdelikt Verfahrenskosten Beschluss, keine Einwände zu erheben

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO
Legal basis cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a detailed reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint.
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Legal basis cited in the dispositive to impose the costs of the complaint proceedings on the losing party.
KI-generiert
VII ZR 822/21
Omission of reasoning for non-admission of revision complaint 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 204/21
Omission of reasons in a non-admission of revision decision under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
VII ZR 153/22
Non-admission of revision: omission of reasoning in civil complaint against BGH rejection
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

Legal basis cited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a detailed reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

Legal basis cited in the dispositive to impose the costs of the complaint proceedings on the losing party.

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 Beschluss des 19. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Köln vom 15. 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).

Die Klägerin trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).

Gegenstandswert: 20.530,76 €

Pamp Halfmeier Jurgeleit

Sacher Hannamann