Non-admission of Revision: waiver of justification under § 544(6) ZPO
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the defendant's complaint against the non-admission of revision, thereby upholding the appellate court's decision and leaving it in force; the defendant bears the costs of the complaint proceedings, and the subject-matter value is €178,478.68. The case involved a civil dispute where the defendant sought to challenge an Oberlandesgericht Hamm decision through a complaint against non-admission, but the BGH declined to provide a substantive justification for its decision. The operative legal basis for the dismissal and the waiver of reasoning is Section 544(6) Sentence 2, second half-sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), which permits omitting the written justification if it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision, alongside Section 97(1) ZPO for cost allocation.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Non-admission of Revision: waiver of justification under § 544(6) ZPO: The case involved a civil dispute where the defendant sought to challenge an Oberlandesgericht Hamm decision through a complaint against non-admission, but the BGH declined to provide a substantive justification for its decision. The operative legal basis for the dismissal and the waiver of reasoning is Section 544(6) Sentence 2, second half-sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), which permits omitting the written justification if it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision, alongside Section 97(1) ZPO for cost allocation.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertProcedural basis for waiving the written justification of the decision as it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting revision.
Basis for ordering the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde der Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Beschluss des 21. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Hamm vom 4. November 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 Beklagte trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Gegenstandswert: 178.478,68 €
Pamp Kartzke Graßnack
Sacher Borris