Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 176/22 ECLI:DE:BGH:2023:240523BVIIZR176.22.0 KI-generiert

Dismissal of non-allowance of revision; waiver of reasoning under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 176/22
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) dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against the non-allowance of revision, thereby upholding the lower court's procedural decision and leaving the underlying judgment in force, with the plaintiff bearing the costs of the appellate proceedings. The dispute concerned a civil matter where the plaintiff sought to challenge a decision of the 23rd Civil Senate of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, which had previously refused to allow an appeal on points of law. The court ordered a rejection of the complaint without a written reasoning, applying the doctrine that no grounds would be provided if they would not contribute to clarifying the conditions for allowing a revision under Section 544(6) Sentence 2, second half-sentence of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Dismissal of non-allowance of revision; waiver of reasoning under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO: The dispute concerned a civil matter where the plaintiff sought to challenge a decision of the 23rd Civil Senate of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, which had previously refused to allow an appeal on points of law. The court ordered a rejection of the complaint without a written reasoning, applying the doctrine that no grounds would be provided if they would not contribute to clarifying the conditions for allowing a revision under Section 544(6) Sentence 2, second half-sentence of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
zivilrechtliche Revision Streitgegenstand prozessleitende Verfügungen Landesrecht Rückzug des Revisionsgesuchs formelle Verfahrenseinstellung

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO
Cited as the basis for waiving the written reasoning in the dismissal of the complaint because it would not contribute to clarifying the conditions for allowing a revision.
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Cited to impose the costs of the complaint proceedings on the plaintiff.
KI-generiert
VII ZR 54/23
Rejection of complaint against non-allowance of civil revision; waiver of written reasoning under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO
VII ZR 58/24
Waiver of reasoning for dismissed complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
VII ZR 443/21
Dismissal of complaint against non-admission of revision without reasoning under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
VII ZR 500/21
Refusal to justify rejection of non-allowance of revision under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
VII ZR 423/21
Dismissal of non-admission of revision without written justification: application of § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

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

Cited as the basis for waiving the written reasoning in the dismissal of the complaint because it would not contribute to clarifying the conditions for allowing a revision.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

Cited to impose the costs of the complaint proceedings on the plaintiff.

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 23. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Düsseldorf vom 5. 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: 97.078,96 €

Pamp Kartzke Sacher

Borris Brenneisen