Non-admission of revision: threshold for clarifying admissibility prerequisites under § 544 (6) sentence 2 ZPO
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice rejected the plaintiff's complaint against the non-admission of revision by the Celle Higher Regional Court, thereby upholding the lower court’s judgment and leaving the original decision in force, with the plaintiff ordered to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings. The dispute involved a civil matter with a subject matter value of approximately €1,061,373, where the plaintiff sought to challenge the appellate court's refusal to allow further review. The rejection was issued without a substantive reasoning, pursuant to § 544 (6) sentence 2 second half-sentence ZPO, as the court determined that providing an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for the admission of revision.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Non-admission of revision: threshold for clarifying admissibility prerequisites under § 544 (6) sentence 2 ZPO: The dispute involved a civil matter with a subject matter value of approximately €1,061,373, where the plaintiff sought to challenge the appellate court's refusal to allow further review. The rejection was issued without a substantive reasoning, pursuant to § 544 (6) sentence 2 second half-sentence ZPO, as the court determined that providing an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for the admission of revision.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertCited as the procedural basis for omitting the reasoning because it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for the admission of revision.
Cited as the 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 5. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Celle vom 22. September 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: 1.061.373,59 €
Pamp Halfmeier Jurgeleit
Graßnack Borris