Admission of leave to appeal in civil proceedings: failure to establish general legal significance or need for uniform case law under § 543 Abs. 2 S. 1 ZPO
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice (BGH) rejected the defendant's complaint against the non-admission of leave to appeal, thereby affirming the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Celle and leaving the lower court's decision in force; the defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. The dispute concerned a civil matter where the appellate court found no grounds for admission to a third instance, and the complainant additionally argued a violation of the right to be heard. The court held that the case lacked general legal significance and did not require the development of law or the securing of uniform legal practice under § 543 Abs. 2 S. 1 ZPO, and explicitly noted that a hypothetical revision would not have succeeded; the separate allegation of a hearing defect under Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG was also dismissed as unfounded.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 543 Abs. 2 Satz 1 ZPO, Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 Halbsatz 2 ZPO; Admission of leave to appeal in civil proceedings: failure to establish general legal significance or need for uniform case law under § 543 Abs. 2 S. 1 ZPO: The dispute concerned a civil matter where the appellate court found no grounds for admission to a third instance, and the complainant additionally argued a violation of the right to be heard. The court held that the case lacked general legal significance and did not require the development of law or the securing of uniform legal practice under § 543 Abs. 2 S. 1 ZPO, and explicitly noted that a hypothetical revision would not have succeeded; the separate allegation of a hearing defect under Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG was also dismissed as unfounded.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertServed as the main ground for rejecting the complaint by establishing that the case lacked the requisite significance or need for legal development to admit a revision.
Procedural provision applied to waive the detailed written reasoning for the decision.
Constitutional provision cited in the dispositive to explicitly reject the defendant's allegation of a violation of the right to be heard.
Costs provision applied to order the losing party, the defendant, to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde der Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 8. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Celle vom 2. September 2021 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). Dabei hat der Senat die Erfolgsaussichten einer Revision geprüft und verneint (vgl. hierzu BVerfGK 6, 79 [juris Rn. 10 f.]; BVerfGK 18, 105 [juris Rn. 21 ff.]). Von einer näheren Begründung wird gemäß § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 Halbsatz 2 ZPO abgesehen.
Der Senat hat auch die Gehörsrüge (Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG) geprüft und für nicht durchgreifend erachtet.
Die Beklagte trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Streitwert: bis 35.000 €
Prof. Dr. Karczewski
Harsdorf-Gebhardt
Dr. Götz
Rust
Piontek