Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 465/21 ECLI:DE:BGH:2023:100523BVIIZR465.21.0 KI-generiert

Discretion to omit reasoning when dismissing complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544(6) ZPO

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 465/21
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) dismissed the defendant’s complaint against the non-admission of leave to appeal, thereby leaving the judgment of the 28th Civil Senate of the Higher Regional Court of Munich dated April 27, 2021, in force; the defendant bears the costs of the complaint proceedings. This procedural decision concerns the leave to appeal requirement in a civil dispute where the underlying subject matter is not detailed in the operative text, but the financial stakes are established at a subject matter value of €33,528.80. The court applied § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence, ZPO, exercising its discretion to omit a written reasoning for the dismissal because such an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting leave to appeal, thereby upholding the procedural standard that the higher court's refusal to grant leave to appeal was correct.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Discretion to omit reasoning when dismissing complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544(6) ZPO: This procedural decision concerns the leave to appeal requirement in a civil dispute where the underlying subject matter is not detailed in the operative text, but the financial stakes are established at a subject matter value of €33,528.80. The court applied § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence, ZPO, exercising its discretion to omit a written reasoning for the dismissal because such an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting leave to appeal, thereby upholding the procedural standard that the higher court's refusal to grant leave to appeal was correct.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Revision eines Entscheids Streitgegenstand Verfahrenskosten Rückzug des Rechtsbegehrens Verfahrensrügen begründeter Entscheid

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO
Cited in the dispositive to justify the court's decision to omit a written reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint, as such an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the conditions for admitting an appeal.
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Cited in the dispositive to impose the costs of the complaint proceedings on the losing party, the defendant.
KI-generiert
VII ZR 822/21
Omission of reasoning for non-admission of revision complaint under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO
VII ZR 439/21
Non-admission of leave to appeal: omission of reasoning justified by irrelevance to clarifying revision admissibility
VII ZR 888/21
Discretion to omit reasoning in dismissing revision admissibility complaint under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
VII ZR 226/22
Dismissal of complaint for non-admission of revision without reasoning under § 544(6) ZPO
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

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

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

Cited in the dispositive to justify the court's decision to omit a written reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint, as such an explanation would not contribute to clarifying the conditions for admitting an appeal.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

Cited in the dispositive to impose the costs of the complaint proceedings on the losing party, the defendant.

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 Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 28. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts München vom 27. 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 Beklagte trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).

Gegenstandswert: 33.528,80 €

Pamp Halfmeier Jurgeleit

Graßnack Borris