Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
IV ZR 36/23 ECLI:DE:BGH:2024:080524BIVZR36.23.0 KI-generiert

Insufficient revision grounds: EU directive compliance and good faith plea in insurance law do not require preliminary reference

Geschäftsnummer IV ZR 36/23
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Kostenauflage zulasten Beschwerdeführer/in
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The German Federal Court of Justice (IV ZR 36/23) dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against the admission of a revision appeal, thereby upholding the prior decision of the Higher Regional Court of Hamm that had refused to admit the revision; the plaintiff did not prevail and is ordered to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings. The dispute concerned insurance law, specifically challenging the conformity of a policy model with guidelines and asserting a plea of good faith (Treu und Glauben), where the court found that the EU directive compliance was not decisive for the outcome and that a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice was unnecessary based on existing case law. The decision rests on § 543 Abs. 2 Satz 1 ZPO, denying admission of revision because the case lacked fundamental legal significance and did not require the development of law or the assurance of uniform jurisprudence, a conclusion supported by the Senate's negative assessment of the chances of success for a revision.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 543 Abs. 2 Satz 1 ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Insufficient revision grounds: EU directive compliance and good faith plea in insurance law do not require preliminary reference: The dispute concerned insurance law, specifically challenging the conformity of a policy model with guidelines and asserting a plea of good faith (Treu und Glauben), where the court found that the EU directive compliance was not decisive for the outcome and that a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice was unnecessary based on existing case law. The decision rests on § 543 Abs. 2 Satz 1 ZPO, denying admission of revision because the case lacked fundamental legal significance and did not require the development of law or the assurance of uniform jurisprudence, a conclusion supported by the Senate's negative assessment of the chances of success for a revision.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Revisionsgründe Richtlinie Vorentscheid Treu und Glauben Klagegründe Landesrecht

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 543 Abs. 2 Satz 1 ZPO
Serves as the main legal ground for dismissing the complaint by stating that the case lacks fundamental significance or requires the development of law to justify a revision.
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Applied in the dispositive to impose the costs of the complaint proceedings on the plaintiff.

Zitierte Rechtsprechung

KI-generiert
IV ZR 268/21
Abusive exercise of permanent contradiction right due to immediate credit security assignment despite defective information duty
BGHZ 238, 32
Juli 2023 - IV ZR 268/21, BGHZ 238, 32 Rn.
IV ZR 353/21
Withdrawal from unit-linked life insurance: Abuse of right where minor form defect did not hinder effective exercise of withdrawal right
BGHZ 236, 163
Februar 2023 - IV ZR 353/21, BGHZ 236, 163 Rn.
KI-generiert
IV ZR 27/22
Non-admission of revision in insurance law: EU directive conformity and preliminary reference on good faith not decisive
IV ZR 77/23
Non-admission of revision in insurance dispute: necessity of CJEU preliminary reference on policy directive compliance and good faith
IV ZR 197/22
Admission of revision in insurance dispute: EU directive conformity and good faith preclusion requiring preliminary CJEU reference
IV ZR 33/22
Admissibility of revision in insurance law: irrelevance of directive conformity and EU preliminary reference on trust and reliance
IV ZR 197/23
Refusal to allow revision for non-admission: admissibility of preliminary EU reference on good faith and directive compliance in insurance dispute

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 543 Abs. 2 Satz 1 ZPO

Serves as the main legal ground for dismissing the complaint by stating that the case lacks fundamental significance or requires the development of law to justify a revision.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

Applied in the dispositive to impose the costs of the complaint proceedings on 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 Beschluss des 6. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Hamm vom 5. Januar 2023 wird zurückgewiesen. Die Rechtssache hat weder grundsätzliche Bedeutung noch erfordert die Fortbildung des Rechts oder die Sicherung einer einheitlichen Rechtsprechung eine Entscheidung des Revisionsgerichts (§ 543 Abs. 2 Satz 1 ZPO).

Die Richtlinienkonformität des Policenmodells ist im Streitfall nicht entscheidungserheblich. Zum Einwand von Treu und Glauben ist auch hier eine Vorlage an den Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union nicht erforderlich (vgl. Senatsurteile vom 19. Juli 2023 - IV ZR 268/21, BGHZ 238, 32 Rn. 13 ff.; vom 15. Februar 2023 - IV ZR 353/21, BGHZ 236, 163 Rn. 27 ff. m.w.N.).

Dabei hat der Senat die Erfolgsaussichten einer Revision geprüft und verneint (vgl. BVerfGK 19, 467, 475; 18, 105, 111 f.; 6, 79, 81 ff.).

Die Klägerin trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).

Streitwert: bis 110.000 €

Prof. Dr. Karczewski

Harsdorf-Gebhardt

Dr. Brockmöller

Dr. Bußmann

Dr. Bommel