Admissibility of challenging attorney mandate defects in statutory court fee objection proceedings under § 66 GKG
Deutschland (DE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice’s Fifth Civil Senate rejected the plaintiff's objection to the court's fee assessment, confirming the correctness of the calculated costs and upholding the original billing. The dispute concerned a procedural fee challenge where the plaintiff argued that her attorney had filed a non-acceptance complaint without a valid mandate, effectively acting without authority; the court held that such allegations regarding the attorney's contractual relationship with the client are inadmissible in the statutory fee objection procedure. The decision was based on §§ 66 Abs. 1 Satz 1, Abs. 6 Satz 1, and Abs. 8 GKG, in conjunction with No. 1243 of the Cost Table to the Court Fees Act, ruling that the objection was procedurally improper for this purpose, and noted that the decision itself was free of court fees with no reimbursement of extrajudicial costs.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 66 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 66 Abs. 6 Satz 1 GKG, § 66 GKG, § 66 Abs. 8 GKG; Admissibility of challenging attorney mandate defects in statutory court fee objection proceedings under § 66 GKG: The dispute concerned a procedural fee challenge where the plaintiff argued that her attorney had filed a non-acceptance complaint without a valid mandate, effectively acting without authority; the court held that such allegations regarding the attorney's contractual relationship with the client are inadmissible in the statutory fee objection procedure. The decision was based on §§ 66 Abs. 1 Satz 1, Abs. 6 Satz 1, and Abs. 8 GKG, in conjunction with No. 1243 of the Cost Table to the Court Fees Act, ruling that the objection was procedurally improper for this purpose, and noted that the decision itself was free of court fees with no reimbursement of extrajudicial costs.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertZitierte Rechtsprechung
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertEstablished the admissibility of the plaintiff's objection against the cost assessment, which was ultimately rejected on the merits.
Defined the procedural competence of the single judge of the senate to decide on the cost objection.
Served as the basis for the order that extrajudicial costs are not refunded in this specific procedure.
Volltext
Die Erinnerung der Klägerin gegen den Kostansatz in der Kostenrechnung des Bundesgerichtshofs vom 14. August 2023 (Rechnungsdatum 16. August 2023 / Kassenzeichen 780023131554) wird zurückgewiesen.
[GRUENDE]
Die nach § 66 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG zulässige Erinnerung gegen den Kostenansatz, über die gemäß § 66 Abs. 6 Satz 1 GKG der Einzelrichter des Senats entscheidet, bleibt in der Sache ohne Erfolg, da die Kosten richtig berechnet worden sind. Die gesetzliche Grundlage hierfür findet sich in Nr. 1243 des Kostenverzeichnisses zum Gerichtskostengesetz.
Soweit die Klägerin beanstandet, der Rechtsanwalt, der für sie Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde eingelegt hat, habe auftragslos gehandelt, handelt es sich um eine Einwendung, die im Erinnerungsverfahren nach § 66 GKG nicht statthaft ist (vgl. BGH, Beschluss vom 15. Januar 2020 - XI ZR 271/19, JurBüro 2020, 376).
Die Entscheidung ergeht gerichtsgebührenfrei. Außergerichtliche Kosten werden nicht erstattet (§ 66 Abs. 8 GKG).
Göbel