Inadmissibility of debtor’s appeal for lack of statutory opening and mandatory BGH attorney representation
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the debtor's appeal as inadmissible, leaving the lower court's decision in force. The dispute concerned a challenge to an order issued by a regional civil court, which the debtor filed as an appeal (Rechtsbeschwerde). The BGH ruled that the appeal was statutorily unpermitted because it was neither explicitly opened by law nor admitted in the challenged decision, and it also failed to meet procedural requirements for an extraordinary complaint. Consequently, the appeal was rejected because it was not filed by an attorney admitted to the BGH, citing specific provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the admissibility and formal requirements of appeals.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 577 Abs. 1 Satz 2 ZPO, § 574 Abs. 1 Satz 1 ZPO, § 78 Abs. 1 Satz 3 ZPO; Inadmissibility of debtor’s appeal for lack of statutory opening and mandatory BGH attorney representation: The dispute concerned a challenge to an order issued by a regional civil court, which the debtor filed as an appeal (Rechtsbeschwerde). The BGH ruled that the appeal was statutorily unpermitted because it was neither explicitly opened by law nor admitted in the challenged decision, and it also failed to meet procedural requirements for an extraordinary complaint. Consequently, the appeal was rejected because it was not filed by an attorney admitted to the BGH, citing specific provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the admissibility and formal requirements of appeals.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertZitierte Rechtsprechung
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertProvision cited in the dispositive to order the dismissal of the inadmissible filing and the allocation of costs to the debtor.
Provision cited to establish that the appeal was not statutorily permissible as it was neither expressly provided for by law nor admitted in the challenged order.
Provision cited to establish the procedural inadmissibility because the appeal was not filed by an attorney admitted to the Federal Court of Justice.
Volltext
Die als Rechtsbeschwerde zu behandelnde Eingabe des Schuldners gegen den Beschluss der 5. Zivilkammer des Landgerichts Bonn vom 5. November 2022 wird auf seine Kosten als unzulässig verworfen (§ 577 Abs. 1 Satz 2 ZPO).
Die Rechtsbeschwerde ist unstatthaft, weil sie weder nach dem Gesetz ausdrücklich eröffnet noch im angefochtenen Beschluss zugelassen worden ist (§ 574 Abs. 1 Satz 1 ZPO).
Auch als außerordentliche Beschwerde ist sie nicht statthaft (vgl. BGH, Beschluss vom 7. März 2002 - IX ZB 11/02, BGHZ 150, 133 [juris Rn. 6 bis 8]).
Darüber hinaus ist die Rechtsbeschwerde unzulässig, weil sie nicht durch einen beim Bundesgerichtshof zugelassenen Rechtsanwalt eingelegt worden ist (§ 78 Abs. 1 Satz 3 ZPO; vgl. BGH, Beschluss vom 26. Oktober 2021 - I ZB 51/21 und I ZB 52/21, juris, mwN).
Koch
Löffler
Schwonke
Odörfer
Wille