Admissibility of revision for lack of fundamental significance in commercial civil litigation

The German Federal Court of Civil Procedure (BGH) dismissed the plaintiff’s application to stay proceedings and the plaintiff’s appeal against the non-admission of revision, thereby upholding the lower court’s judgment and ordering the plaintiff to bear the costs of the appeal. The dispute concerned a civil matter previously litigated before the OLG Naumburg, where the plaintiff sought to challenge the appellate court’s refusal to grant permission for further appeal to the BGH. The BGH held that the case lacked fundamental legal significance and did not require the development of law or the uniformity of jurisprudence, citing its own prior ruling from February 2024 as sufficient grounds for the decision without further elaboration under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2 Halbsatz 2 ZPO. The decisive legal basis for this outcome was § 543 Abs. 2 Satz 1 ZPO, which governs the admissibility of non-admission appeals based on criteria of fundamental significance, legal development, or uniformity.