Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
V ZR 64/22 ECLI:DE:BGH:2023:190123BVZR64.22.0 KI-generiert

Non-admission of revision: failure to demonstrate fundamental legal significance and impact of shifting legal grounds on GKG dispute value

Geschäftsnummer V ZR 64/22
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 (BGH) dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against the non-admission of revision, thereby upholding the judgment of the Oldenburg Higher Regional Court and leaving the original decision in force; the plaintiff, who also acted as the respondent in the main proceedings, was ordered to bear the costs of the complaint. The case involved a dispute regarding tenancy and property rights, where the plaintiff had based its defense on a tenancy agreement in the first instance but shifted to a claim of ownership in the second and third instances. The BGH determined that no questions of fundamental legal significance existed and that the case did not require further development of the law or uniform application of legal principles under § 543 Abs. 2 ZPO. Furthermore, the court set the subject matter value for the complaint proceedings at €34,823.75, ruling that the reduction of the dispute value under § 41 Abs. 2 Satz 2 GKG was inapplicable because the party’s change in legal grounds between instances created a distinct "counter-plaintiff interest" that precluded the limitation of the value by the first-instance dispute amount under § 47 Abs. 2 GKG.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 543 Abs. 2 ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 48 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 6 Satz 1 ZPO, § 41 Abs. 2 Satz 2 GKG, § 47 Abs. 2 Satz 1 GKG; Non-admission of revision: failure to demonstrate fundamental legal significance and impact of shifting legal grounds on GKG dispute value: The case involved a dispute regarding tenancy and property rights, where the plaintiff had based its defense on a tenancy agreement in the first instance but shifted to a claim of ownership in the second and third instances. The BGH determined that no questions of fundamental legal significance existed and that the case did not require further development of the law or uniform application of legal principles under § 543 Abs. 2 ZPO. Furthermore, the court set the subject matter value for the complaint proceedings at €34,823.75, ruling that the reduction of the dispute value under § 41 Abs. 2 Satz 2 GKG was inapplicable because the party’s change in legal grounds between instances created a distinct "counter-plaintiff interest" that precluded the limitation of the value by the first-instance dispute amount under § 47 Abs. 2 GKG.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Revision eines Entscheids Streitwert Drittwiderspruch Einwendungen Eigentumsrecht E-Justice

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 543 Abs. 2 ZPO
Legal basis cited to justify the dismissal of the complaint against the non-admission of revision, determining that no questions of fundamental significance were present.
§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO
Provision applied to order the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
§ 48 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Statutory basis cited for calculating the subject matter value of the complaint proceedings.
§ 6 Satz 1 ZPO
Provision cited in conjunction with the GKG calculation to determine the scope of the subject matter value.
§ 41 Abs. 2 Satz 2 GKG
Provision cited to exclude the reduction of the dispute value because the preconditions were no longer met after the party changed its defense strategy.
§ 47 Abs. 2 Satz 1 GKG
Provision applied to determine that the dispute value is not limited to the first-instance amount due to the change in legal grounds.
§ 47 GKG
4; BeckOK Kostenrecht/Schindler [1.10.2022], § 47 GKG Rn.

Zitierte Rechtsprechung

KI-generiert
V ZR 192/15
Subject matter value for property restitution based on asserted leasehold: one-year usage value under § 41 Abs. 2 Satz 2 GKG instead of market value
II ZR 46/13
Litigation Value Valuation of Economic Identity Between Performance and Declaratory Claims in Tort Disputes Involving Joint and Several Liability
KI-generiert
VII ZR 208/22
Non-admission of revision in civil dispute: omission of reasoning and cost allocation under § 544(6) and § 97(1) ZPO
XI ZR 374/21
Admission of revision complaint: absence of fundamental legal significance for uniform case law under § 543 ZPO
V ZR 5/23
Non-admission of revision in civil litigation: fundamental significance and uniform jurisprudence under § 543 Abs. 2 ZPO
XI ZR 47/20
Rejection of non-admission of revision due to lack of fundamental legal significance in civil proceedings
V ZR 253/22
Refusal of revision admission for lack of fundamental legal significance in real property dispute

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 543 Abs. 2 ZPO

Legal basis cited to justify the dismissal of the complaint against the non-admission of revision, determining that no questions of fundamental significance were present.

§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO

Provision applied to order the plaintiff to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.

§ 48 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Statutory basis cited for calculating the subject matter value of the complaint proceedings.

§ 6 Satz 1 ZPO

Provision cited in conjunction with the GKG calculation to determine the scope of the subject matter value.

§ 47 Abs. 2 Satz 1 GKG

Provision applied to determine that the dispute value is not limited to the first-instance amount due to the change in legal grounds.

§ 41 Abs. 2 Satz 2 GKG

Provision cited to exclude the reduction of the dispute value because the preconditions were no longer met after the party changed its defense strategy.

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

1. Die Beschwerde des Klägers gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 12. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Oldenburg vom 1. März 2022 wird zurückgewiesen.

Die Rechtssache wirft keine entscheidungserheblichen Fragen von grundsätzlicher Bedeutung auf. Eine Entscheidung ist auch nicht zur Fortbildung des Rechts oder zur Sicherung einer einheitlichen Rechtsprechung erforderlich (§ 543 Abs. 2 ZPO).

Der Kläger trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).

2. Der Gegenstandswert des Beschwerdeverfahrens beträgt 34.823,75 € (§ 48 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 6 Satz 1 ZPO). Der Streitwert wird nicht gemäß § 47 Abs. 2 Satz 1, Abs. 3 GKG durch den Wert des Streitgegenstands der ersten Instanz begrenzt. Da der Beschwerdeführer als Widerbeklagter sein Verteidigungsverhalten (nur) in erster Instanz auf ein Mietverhältnis, in zweiter und dritter Instanz dagegen auf sein Eigentum gestützt hat, waren die Voraussetzungen für die Absenkung des Streitwerts gemäß § 41 Abs. 2 Satz 2 GKG in den Rechtsmittelinstanzen nicht (mehr) gegeben (vgl. Senat, Beschluss vom 16. Juni 2016 - V ZR 192/15, NZM 2016, 892 Rn. 5). Damit ist nicht nur das Interesse an der Rechtsverteidigung, sondern auch das (Wider)Klägerinteresse anders zu bewerten; infolgedessen greift § 47 Abs. 2 Satz 1 GKG nach Sinn und Zweck nicht ein (vgl. hierzu BGH, Beschluss vom 13. Februar 2013 - II ZR 46/13, NJW-RR 2013, 1022 Rn. 4; BeckOK Kostenrecht/Schindler [1.10.2022], § 47 GKG Rn. 21 f.).

Brückner

Haberkamp

Hamdorf

Malik

Grau