Non-admission of leave to appeal: omission of reasoning justified by irrelevance to clarifying revision admissibility

The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the defendant's complaint against the non-admission of leave to appeal, thereby rejecting its challenge to the prior appellate ruling; the defendant prevailed in the procedural outcome of this specific motion by having the complaint dismissed, but this confirms the lower court's decision to deny further review. The dispute, with a value in dispute of €44,080.00 (primarily concerning an advance claim and a declaratory relief request), involved a civil case where the defendant argued that the lower appellate court had erred in its refusal to allow the revisionary instance to hear the case. The court relied on § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, determining that a written reasoning was unnecessary because providing it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites under which a revision is admissible, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings pursuant to § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO.