Admissibility of revision based on lack of fundamental significance, further development of law, or uniform jurisprudence under § 543(2) ZPO.

In a decision dated September 15, 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), 11th Civil Senate, dismissed the plaintiff’s application to stay proceedings and rejected his complaint against the non-admission of appeal by the Munich Higher Regional Court. The dispute involved a civil proceeding where the plaintiff sought to admit a revision based on claims of fundamental legal significance, the further development of law, or the need to ensure uniform jurisprudence. The court held that none of these grounds under Section 543(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) were met, as the subject matter lacked fundamental significance and did not require clarification by the supreme court. The judgment further noted that the court assessed the prospects of success for a hypothetical revision and found them to be negative, relying on prior rulings from May, June, and July 2020 to substantiate the lack of merit. Consequently, the plaintiff was ordered to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings, and the subject matter value was capped at 25,000 euros.