Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
VII ZR 822/21 ECLI:DE:BGH:2023:290323BVIIZR822.21.0 KI-generiert

Omission of reasoning for non-admission of revision complaint under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO

Geschäftsnummer VII ZR 822/21
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 plaintiff's complaint against the non-admission of leave to appeal, thereby rejecting the plaintiff's challenge and leaving the appellate judgment of the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf in force. The dispute concerned a civil liability claim where the plaintiff sought leave for a revision appeal, which the appellate court had denied; the BGH found no need to provide a written reasoning for the dismissal as it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision. The decision was based on § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), which permits omitting reasons for a complaint's rejection if such clarification is not appropriate, with the plaintiff ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings pursuant to § 97(1) ZPO.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Omission of reasoning for non-admission of revision complaint under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO: The dispute concerned a civil liability claim where the plaintiff sought leave for a revision appeal, which the appellate court had denied; the BGH found no need to provide a written reasoning for the dismissal as it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision. The decision was based on § 544(6) sentence 2, second half-sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), which permits omitting reasons for a complaint's rejection if such clarification is not appropriate, with the plaintiff ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings pursuant to § 97(1) ZPO.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
zivilrechtliche Revision privatrechtliche Haftung Unterlassungsdelikt Verletzung der Begründungspflicht Rückzug des Revisionsgesuchs E-Justice

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO
Procedural basis cited in the order to justify the omission of a written reasoning for the rejection of the complaint against the non-admission of revision.
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Costs provision cited in the order to assign the costs of the complaint proceedings to the plaintiff.
KI-generiert
VII ZR 70/23
Omission of reasons in rejecting complaint against non-admission of revision
VII ZR 315/21
Non-admission of revision: Omission of reasoning permitted where it would not clarify prerequisites under § 544(6) Sentence 2 ZPO
VII ZR 150/24
Omission of reasons in complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
VII ZR 130/23
Omission of reasoning on complaint against non-admission of revision under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 ZPO
VII ZR 226/22
Dismissal of complaint for non-admission of revision without reasoning under § 544(6) ZPO

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

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

Procedural basis cited in the order to justify the omission of a written reasoning for the rejection of the complaint against the non-admission of revision.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

Costs provision cited in the order to assign the costs of the complaint proceedings to 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 Düsseldorf vom 15. Juli 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 (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).

Gegenstandswert: 75.000 €

Pamp Halfmeier Kartzke

Jurgeleit Sacher