Waiver of reasoning for non-admission of revision in consumer civil procedure
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against the non-admission of leave to appeal, thereby upholding the lower court's judgment and leaving the defendant as the prevailing party in the litigation. This procedural decision resolved a dispute regarding the admissibility of a revision appeal in a civil case, with the appellate court having previously denied leave to appeal. The BGH applied § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO to refrain from providing a substantive reasoning, determining that such an explanation would not contribute to the clarification of the prerequisites for admitting a revision, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings under § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO, with a disputed value of 41,143.01 euros.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Waiver of reasoning for non-admission of revision in consumer civil procedure: This procedural decision resolved a dispute regarding the admissibility of a revision appeal in a civil case, with the appellate court having previously denied leave to appeal. The BGH applied § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO to refrain from providing a substantive reasoning, determining that such an explanation would not contribute to the clarification of the prerequisites for admitting a revision, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings under § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO, with a disputed value of 41,143.01 euros.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertBasis for refraining from providing a substantive reasoning in the dispositive because it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision.
Ground 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 22. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Dresden vom 23. 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: 41.143,01 €
Pamp Kartzke Sacher
Borris Brenneisen