Timeliness of justification for complaint against non-admission of revision in civil proceedings
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe BGH 7th Civil Senate dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against the non-admission of revision, leaving the partial judgment of the Kammergericht in force; the plaintiff therefore did not prevail in the appeal against the refusal to allow a further appeal to the Federal Court of Justice. The case involved a civil dispute where the plaintiff sought to challenge a partial judgment from the appellate level but failed to file the written justification for the non-admission complaint within the statutory deadline. The decisive legal basis for the dismissal was the procedural requirement that a complaint against the non-admission of revision must be justified in time, specifically referencing §§ 544(4) and 97(1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 4 ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Timeliness of justification for complaint against non-admission of revision in civil proceedings: The case involved a civil dispute where the plaintiff sought to challenge a partial judgment from the appellate level but failed to file the written justification for the non-admission complaint within the statutory deadline. The decisive legal basis for the dismissal was the procedural requirement that a complaint against the non-admission of revision must be justified in time, specifically referencing §§ 544(4) and 97(1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertCited in the dispositive as the procedural basis for dismissing the complaint because the required justification was not filed within the statutory deadline.
Cited in the dispositive to establish the time limit for filing the justification of the complaint against non-admission of revision.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde des Klägers gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Teilurteil des 7. Zivilsenats des Kammergerichts vom 8. September 2025 wird auf seine Kosten verworfen, weil die Beschwerde nicht rechtzeitig begründet worden ist (§ 544 Abs. 4, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Streitwert: 10.662,94 €
Pamp Jurgeleit Sacher
Brenneisen Hannamann