Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 35/22 ECLI:DE:BGH:2023:240523BVIIZR35.22.0 KI-generiert

Dispensation from reasoned judgment in non-admission of civil revision under § 544(6) No. 2 Half-sentence 2 ZPO

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 35/22
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Nichteintreten / Unzulässig (Inadmissible)
Kostenauflage zulasten Beschwerdeführer/in
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) rejected the plaintiff's non-admission complaint and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs of the appellate proceedings, thereby upholding the appeal court's decision not to allow the revisionary appeal. The dispute concerned a civil matter involving a claim for approximately 141,880 euros, which had been decided by the regional court of appeals after an initial lower court judgment. Relying on § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, the BGH dispensed with a substantive reasoning, determining that a written justification would not contribute to the clarification of the prerequisites under which a revisionary appeal must be admitted, and applied § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO to assign the procedural costs to the losing party.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Dispensation from reasoned judgment in non-admission of civil revision under § 544(6) No. 2 Half-sentence 2 ZPO: The dispute concerned a civil matter involving a claim for approximately 141,880 euros, which had been decided by the regional court of appeals after an initial lower court judgment. Relying on § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, the BGH dispensed with a substantive reasoning, determining that a written justification would not contribute to the clarification of the prerequisites under which a revisionary appeal must be admitted, and applied § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO to assign the procedural costs to the losing party.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Revision eines Entscheids Begründung in der Sache Streitgegenstand begründeter Entscheid prozessleitende Verfügungen E-Justice

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO
Cited in the operative part to justify dispensing with a reasoned judgment because a written explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting an appeal.
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Cited in the operative part to impose the costs of the complaint proceedings on the losing party, the plaintiff.
KI-generiert
VII ZR 366/21
Non-admission of revision in civil proceedings: scope of § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO permitting absence of reasoned justification
VII ZR 100/23
Non-admission of appeal in revision without reasoned justification under § 544 ZPO
VII ZR 71/20
Non-admission of revision in civil proceedings under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO without reasoned judgment
VII ZR 128/22
Non-admission of Revision: Dispensing with reasoning under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO
VII ZR 37/23
Refusal to admit revision to the Supreme Court without reasoned justification under § 544 (6) No. 2 sentence 2 ZPO

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

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

Cited in the operative part to justify dispensing with a reasoned judgment because a written explanation would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting an appeal.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

Cited in the operative part to impose the costs of the complaint proceedings on the losing party, 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 Urteil des 5. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Rostock vom 21. Januar 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: 141.880,07 €

Pamp Halfmeier Kartzke

Borris Brenneisen