Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
IV ZR 385/22 ECLI:DE:BGH:2024:100124BIVZR385.22.0 KI-generiert

Admission of revision appeal: lack of fundamental significance or need for uniform jurisprudence under § 543(2) ZPO

Geschäftsnummer IV ZR 385/22
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 dismissed the defendant's complaint for leave to file a revision appeal, thereby upholding the appellate court's decision to refuse admission of the revision; consequently, the lower court's judgment remains in force, and the defendant bears the litigation costs. The dispute concerned a civil matter where the defendant challenged the appellate court's finding that their appeal to the supreme court lacked admission grounds. The decisive legal basis was § 543(2) sentence 1 ZPO, which requires that a revision appeal demonstrates either fundamental legal significance, a need for the development of law, or the necessity to secure uniform jurisprudence; the court found no such deficiencies, noting that it had also reviewed and denied the prospects of success for a revision under § 544(6) sentence 2 ZPO.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 543 Abs. 2 Satz 1 ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 Halbsatz 2 ZPO; Admission of revision appeal: lack of fundamental significance or need for uniform jurisprudence under § 543(2) ZPO: The dispute concerned a civil matter where the defendant challenged the appellate court's finding that their appeal to the supreme court lacked admission grounds. The decisive legal basis was § 543(2) sentence 1 ZPO, which requires that a revision appeal demonstrates either fundamental legal significance, a need for the development of law, or the necessity to secure uniform jurisprudence; the court found no such deficiencies, noting that it had also reviewed and denied the prospects of success for a revision under § 544(6) sentence 2 ZPO.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Revisionsgründe Streitgegenstand Zivilurteil E-Justice Beschwerdelegitimation Vorabentscheidungsverfahren

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 543 Abs. 2 Satz 1 ZPO
The main ground for dismissing the complaint, as the court found the appeal lacked the requisite legal significance or need for uniform jurisprudence to admit a revision.
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
The provision cited to impose the costs of the complaint proceedings on the unsuccessful defendant.
§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 Halbsatz 2 ZPO
The procedural basis used to waive a detailed written justification because the court had already reviewed and denied the prospects of success for the revision.
KI-generiert
XI ZR 29/22
Admission of revision denied: lack of fundamental legal significance under § 543(2) ZPO
XI ZR 374/21
Admission of revision complaint: absence of fundamental legal significance for uniform case law under § 543 ZPO
VIa ZR 1389/22
Admissibility of revision appeal for fundamental significance and legal development under § 543 ZPO
XI ZR 170/20
Admissibility of revision based on lack of fundamental significance, further development of law, or uniform jurisprudence under § 543(2) ZPO.
IV ZR 316/21
Refusal to admit revision for lack of fundamental significance in civil proceedings

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 543 Abs. 2 Satz 1 ZPO

The main ground for dismissing the complaint, as the court found the appeal lacked the requisite legal significance or need for uniform jurisprudence to admit a revision.

§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 Halbsatz 2 ZPO

The procedural basis used to waive a detailed written justification because the court had already reviewed and denied the prospects of success for the revision.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

The provision cited to impose the costs of the complaint proceedings on the unsuccessful defendant.

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 Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Beschluss des 8. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Celle vom 7. November 2022 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.

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

Streitwert: bis 30.000 €

Prof. Dr. Karczewski

Harsdorf-Gebhardt

Dr. Götz

Rust

Piontek