Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
V ZR 14/23 ECLI:DE:BGH:2023:071223BVZR14.23.0 Generato dall'IA

Diminished property value from renovation and limits of revision admissibility under § 543(2) ZPO

Numero d'incarto V ZR 14/23
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Spese processuali a carico del ricorrente / reclamante
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the appellant’s complaint against the non-admission of revision, ordering her to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings and setting the amount in dispute at a value tier up to €45,000. The dispute arose from a property renovation case where the appellant sought damages or specific performance related to the diminished value of her residential property due to the difference between the actual and requested scope of renovation work. The court held that the case did not present questions of fundamental significance, nor was a decision necessary for the development of law or ensuring uniform jurisprudence under § 543(2) ZPO. Key legal norms applied include § 543(2) ZPO for the standard of non-admission of revision, § 97(1) and § 101(1) ZPO for cost allocation, and §§ 48(1) sentence 1, 63(3) sentence 1 no. 2 GKG in conjunction with § 3 ZPO for the determination of the dispute value based on the estimated diminished value of the property.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 543 Abs. 2 ZPO, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 48 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 3 ZPO, § 63 Abs. 3 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG, § 97 Abs. 1, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO; Diminished property value from renovation and limits of revision admissibility under § 543(2) ZPO: The dispute arose from a property renovation case where the appellant sought damages or specific performance related to the diminished value of her residential property due to the difference between the actual and requested scope of renovation work. The court held that the case did not present questions of fundamental significance, nor was a decision necessary for the development of law or ensuring uniform jurisprudence under § 543(2) ZPO. Key legal norms applied include § 543(2) ZPO for the standard of non-admission of revision, § 97(1) and § 101(1) ZPO for cost allocation, and §§ 48(1) sentence 1, 63(3) sentence 1 no. 2 GKG in conjunction with § 3 ZPO for the determination of the dispute value based on the estimated diminished value of the property.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
spese di ristrutturazione valore litigioso incentivazione immobiliare procedura di revisione restituzione della proprietà valore venale dell'immobile

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 543 Abs. 2 ZPO
Basis for dismissing the complaint as the court found no questions of fundamental significance or need for uniform jurisprudence.
§ 101 Abs. 1 ZPO
Die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens einschließlich etwaiger Kosten der Nebenintervention trägt die Klägerin zu 1 (§ 97 Abs. 1, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO).
§ 48 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Der Gegenstandswert des Beschwerdeverfahrens wird auf die Wertstufe bis zu 45.000 € festgesetzt (§ 48 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG i.V.m.
§ 3 ZPO
§ 3 ZPO, geschätzter Minderwert des Wohneigentums der Klägerin zu 1 bei Vergleich der tatsächlichen mit der beantragten Ausführung der Sanierung, vgl.
§ 63 Abs. 3 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG
Zu einer Änderung des Streitwerts für die Berufungsinstanz von Amts wegen gemäß § 63 Abs. 3 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG ist der Senat nicht befugt, weil die Einlegung einer Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde nicht zu dem Anfall der „Hauptsache“ führt (vgl.
§ 97 Abs. 1, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO
Provisions applied to order the losing party to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
§ 48 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG i.V.m. § 3 ZPO
Legal basis for setting the amount in dispute at a value tier up to €45,000.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
V ZR 254/16
Quantification of legal interest for appeal admissibility in claims to remove unauthorized changes to common property
V ZR 160/19
Valuation of dispute amount for declaratory action to establish contract nullity: full performance value versus difference in value
Generato dall'IA
V ZR 40/22
Property disturbance injunction and valuation: admissibility of revision and basis for calculating dispute value (market value diminishment vs. removal costs)
VIII ZR 30/22
Tenant's toleration of modernization and maintenance works: Value of complaint for revision admissibility
VIII ZR 26/22
Valuing grievance for revision admissibility in tenant's duty to tolerate modernization and repair measures
VIII ZR 36/22
Calculating the appeal value for a tenant’s duty to tolerate modernization and repair works
V ZR 65/15
Valuation of party interest for admitting revision where a forced right of way is enjoined: property value diminution versus rent

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 543 Abs. 2 ZPO

Basis for dismissing the complaint as the court found no questions of fundamental significance or need for uniform jurisprudence.

§ 97 Abs. 1, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO

Provisions applied to order the losing party to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.

§ 48 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG i.V.m. § 3 ZPO

Legal basis for setting the amount in dispute at a value tier up to €45,000.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Die Beschwerde der Klägerin zu 1 gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Beschluss der 1. Zivilkammer des Landgerichts Aurich vom 14. Dezember 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).

Die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens einschließlich etwaiger Kosten der Nebenintervention trägt die Klägerin zu 1 (§ 97 Abs. 1, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO).

Der Gegenstandswert des Beschwerdeverfahrens wird auf die Wertstufe bis zu 45.000 € festgesetzt (§ 48 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG i.V.m. § 3 ZPO, geschätzter Minderwert des Wohneigentums der Klägerin zu 1 bei Vergleich der tatsächlichen mit der beantragten Ausführung der Sanierung, vgl. Senat, Beschluss vom 6. April 2017 - V ZR 254/16, WuM 2017, 425 Rn. 4). Zu einer Änderung des Streitwerts für die Berufungsinstanz von Amts wegen gemäß § 63 Abs. 3 Satz 1 Nr. 2 GKG ist der Senat nicht befugt, weil die Einlegung einer Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde nicht zu dem Anfall der „Hauptsache“ führt (vgl. Senat, Beschluss vom 12. März 2020 - V ZR 160/19, NJW-RR 2020, 640 Rn. 5).

Brückner

Göbel

Malik

Laube

Grau