Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
I ZB 22/22 ECLI:DE:BGH:2022:141222BIZB22.22.0 KI-generiert

Inadmissibility of hearing complaint for lacking demonstration that decisive arguments were overlooked under § 69a GKG

Geschäftsnummer I ZB 22/22
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Nichteintreten / Unzulässig (Inadmissible)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the defendant's filing as an inadmissible hearing complaint (*Anhörungsrüge*) under Section 69a of the Court Costs Act (GKG), concluding that the submission failed to provide the required detailed explanation of how decisive arguments were overlooked in the prior decision by the single judge dated October 19, 2022. The dispute concerned a procedural objection filed as a "legal remedy/appeal/substantive complaint" against that interlocutory order, where the defendant attempted to challenge the court's handling of his submissions. Applying the specific requirements of § 69a Abs. 1 Nr. 2, Abs. 2 Satz 5, and Abs. 4 Satz 1 und 2 GKG, the court held that the filing did not meet the statutory threshold for a hearing complaint and that a counter-representation not provided for in the law was not permissible, leaving the original decision of the single judge in force and barring the defendant from expecting a further response to additional submissions in the matter.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 69a Abs. 1 Nr. 2, Abs. 2 Satz 5, Abs. 4 Satz 1 und 2 GKG; Inadmissibility of hearing complaint for lacking demonstration that decisive arguments were overlooked under § 69a GKG: The dispute concerned a procedural objection filed as a "legal remedy/appeal/substantive complaint" against that interlocutory order, where the defendant attempted to challenge the court's handling of his submissions. Applying the specific requirements of § 69a Abs. 1 Nr. 2, Abs. 2 Satz 5, and Abs. 4 Satz 1 und 2 GKG, the court held that the filing did not meet the statutory threshold for a hearing complaint and that a counter-representation not provided for in the law was not permissible, leaving the original decision of the single judge in force and barring the defendant from expecting a further response to additional submissions in the matter.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Verfahrensrügen Zwischenentscheid Streitgegenstand Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehör materielle Begründung Fehlen materieller Voraussetzungen

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 69a Abs. 1 Nr. 2, Abs. 2 Satz 5, Abs. 4 Satz 1 und 2 GKG
Cited in the dispositive to reject the hearing complaint as inadmissible due to the lack of a sufficient demonstration that decisive arguments were overlooked.

Zitierte Rechtsprechung

KI-generiert
I ZB 28/21
November 2021 - I ZB 28/21, juris Rn.
KI-generiert
VIII ZB 58/23
Inadmissibility of a hearing complaint for failure to comply with mandatory legal representation requirements and lack of sufficient factual substantiation of a violation of the right to be heard
I ZR 91/22
Inadmissibility of Anhörungsrüge for failing to demonstrate new, independent violation of right to be heard despite simplified reasoning under § 544 Abs. 6 ZPO
B 6 KA 7/11 C
Inadmissibility of an objection to violation of the right to be heard for failing to concretely demonstrate decision-relevant errors in the lower court’s reasoning
VIII ZR 127/24
Inadmissibility of hearing complaint against cost assessment objection for lack of specific grounds on overlooked submissions
B 6 KA 3/11 C
Admissibility of an objection to a hearing violation requiring specific demonstration of ignored decision-relevant arguments rather than mere disagreement with legal interpretation

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 69a Abs. 1 Nr. 2, Abs. 2 Satz 5, Abs. 4 Satz 1 und 2 GKG

Cited in the dispositive to reject the hearing complaint as inadmissible due to the lack of a sufficient demonstration that decisive arguments were overlooked.

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

Das als Anhörungsrüge des Beklagten gegen den Beschluss des Einzelrichters vom 19. Oktober 2022 auszulegende "Rechtsmittel/Beschwerde/Sachrüge" vom 22. November 2022 wird als unzulässig verworfen, weil es an der erforderlichen Darlegung fehlt, dass entscheidungserhebliches Vorbringen übergangen worden sei (§ 69a Abs. 1 Nr. 2, Abs. 2 Satz 5, Abs. 4 Satz 1 und 2 GKG). Eine im Gesetz nicht vorgesehene Gegenvorstellung kommt daneben nicht in Betracht (vgl. BGH, Beschluss vom 3. November 2021 - I ZB 28/21, juris Rn. 2).

Der Beklagte und seine Prozessbevollmächtigten können nicht mit einer Antwort auf weitere Eingaben in dieser Sache rechnen.

Odörfer