Discretion to omit reasoning in dismissing revision admissibility complaint under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against the lower appellate court's refusal to allow the revision, upholding the 2021 decision and ordering the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings, including those arising from the defendant's ancillary intervention. The dispute, valued at 46,466.27 euros, involved a civil matter where the plaintiff challenged the procedural refusal of the appellate court to hear a revision appeal, but the BGH found no grounds to overturn this procedural ruling. Relying on § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, second half-sentence, and §§ 97 Abs. 1, 101 Abs. 1 ZPO, the court declined to provide a detailed written justification, determining that an explanation would not contribute to the clarification of the requirements for admitting a revision.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 101 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Discretion to omit reasoning in dismissing revision admissibility complaint under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO: The dispute, valued at 46,466.27 euros, involved a civil matter where the plaintiff challenged the procedural refusal of the appellate court to hear a revision appeal, but the BGH found no grounds to overturn this procedural ruling. Relying on § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, second half-sentence, and §§ 97 Abs. 1, 101 Abs. 1 ZPO, the court declined to provide a detailed written justification, determining that an explanation would not contribute to the clarification of the requirements for admitting a revision.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertCited in the dispositive to justify the omission of a written reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint.
Cited in the dispositive as the basis for ordering the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
Cited in the dispositive to include the costs arising from the ancillary intervention in the order to the plaintiff.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde der Klägerin gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Beschluss des 8. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Karlsruhe vom 2. Dezember 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 einschließlich der durch die Nebenintervention auf Seiten des Beklagten entstandenen Kosten (§ 97 Abs. 1, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Gegenstandswert: 46.466,27 €
Pamp Kartzke Jurgeleit
Borris Brenneisen