Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 851/21 ECLI:DE:BGH:2023:150323BVIIZR851.21.0 KI-generiert

Non-admission of revision for lack of clarifying potential under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 851/21
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Kostenauflage zulasten Beschwerdeführer/in
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The German Federal Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against the non-admission of revision, leaving the judgment of the Munich Higher Regional Court in force; the plaintiff bears the costs of the proceedings, including those arising from the defendant's auxiliary intervention. The dispute concerned a civil matter involving a claim valued at 420,000 EUR, where the plaintiff sought to challenge the lower court's decision through an admission complaint. The court declined to provide a substantive reasoned judgment, stating that such an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision under Section 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 101 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Non-admission of revision for lack of clarifying potential under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO: The dispute concerned a civil matter involving a claim valued at 420,000 EUR, where the plaintiff sought to challenge the lower court's decision through an admission complaint. The court declined to provide a substantive reasoned judgment, stating that such an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision under Section 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Revision eines Entscheids Streitgegenstand Begründung in der Sache Zivilprozessordnung Rückzug des Revisionsgesuchs E-Justice

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 101 Abs. 1 ZPO
Costs rule cited in the operative part to include costs arising from auxiliary intervention on the defendant's side.
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO
Procedural basis cited in the operative part to justify omitting a reasoned judgment because it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision.
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Costs rule cited in the operative part to impose the costs of the complaint proceedings on the losing plaintiff.
KI-generiert
VII ZR 70/24
Refusal to state reasons for non-admission of revision under § 544(6) ZPO
VII ZR 226/22
Dismissal of complaint for non-admission of revision without reasoning under § 544(6) ZPO
VII ZR 315/21
Non-admission of revision: Omission of reasoning permitted where it would not clarify prerequisites under § 544(6) Sentence 2 ZPO
VII ZR 18/24
Non-admission of revision complaint without reasoned decision under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
VII ZR 127/24
Non-admission of revision: Omission of reasoning under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO where justification would not clarify admissibility prerequisites

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

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

Procedural basis cited in the operative part to justify omitting a reasoned judgment because it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

Costs rule cited in the operative part to impose the costs of the complaint proceedings on the losing plaintiff.

§ 101 Abs. 1 ZPO

Costs rule cited in the operative part to include costs arising from auxiliary intervention on the defendant's side.

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 9. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts München vom 28. September 2021 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 einschließlich der durch die Nebenintervention auf Seiten der Beklagten entstandenen Kosten (§ 97 Abs. 1, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO).

Gegenstandswert: 420.000 €

Pamp Kartzke Graßnack

Borris Brenneisen