Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 414/21 ECLI:DE:BGH:2023:100523BVIIZR414.21.0 KI-generiert

BGH complaint against non-admission of revision: § 544(6) sentence 2 ZPO permits omission of reasoning where it would not contribute to clarifying admission criteria.

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 414/21
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Kostenauflage zulasten Beschwerdeführer/in
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) rejected the plaintiff's complaint against the non-admission of revision, thereby upholding the appellate court's decision and leaving the lower instance ruling final; the plaintiff bears the costs of the complaint proceedings, and no written statement of reasons was issued pursuant to § 544(6) sentence 2, second alternative of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) as the reasoning would not contribute to clarifying the requirements for admitting revision. The dispute concerns a civil matter with a subject value of €27,223.36, arising from a procedural challenge to the appellate court's refusal to allow a further appeal. The decisive legal basis is § 544(6) sentence 2, second alternative ZPO, which permits the BGH to omit a justification for rejecting a complaint regarding the non-admission of revision when such an explanation serves no purpose for legal clarification.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; BGH complaint against non-admission of revision: § 544(6) sentence 2 ZPO permits omission of reasoning where it would not contribute to clarifying admission criteria: The dispute concerns a civil matter with a subject value of €27,223.36, arising from a procedural challenge to the appellate court's refusal to allow a further appeal. The decisive legal basis is § 544(6) sentence 2, second alternative ZPO, which permits the BGH to omit a justification for rejecting a complaint regarding the non-admission of revision when such an explanation serves no purpose for legal clarification.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Revisionsverfahren Streitgegenstand verfahrensrechtliche Fragen Ersatzstrafe Begründung Zivilprozessordnung

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO
Justifies the omission of a detailed written statement of reasons for the rejection of the complaint.
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Serves as the basis for ordering the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
KI-generiert
VII ZR 201/23
Objection to non-admission of civil revision under § 544 ZPO; omission of reasoning permitted where it does not contribute to clarifying admission conditions
VII ZR 44/23
Admission of revision complaint and omission of written reasoning under ZPO
VII ZR 140/19
BGH rejects non-admission complaint for revision under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO without substantive reasoning
VII ZR 125/22
BGH denies complaint against non-admission of revision in civil proceedings where reasoning omission serves no clarifying function under § 544(6) ZPO
VII ZR 279/21
BGH refuses to state reasons for non-admission of revision where explanation would not clarify admissibility requirements under § 544(6) sentence 2 ZPO

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

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

Justifies the omission of a detailed written statement of reasons for the rejection of the complaint.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

Serves as the basis for ordering the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.

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 Beschluss des 28. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts München vom 19. April 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 (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).

Gegenstandswert: 27.223,36 €