BAG 4 AZR 835/09•Revision dismissed; claims held inadmissible
BAG 4 AZR 835/09Bag / 4. Abteilung16.11.2011Dismissed
Von Omnilex extrahiert
The Federal Labor Court decided the revision in a labor case without reasons, referring to the leading parallel proceeding 4 AZR 839/09. It dismissed the plaintiff’s revision and specified that the underlying claims were to be rejected as inadmissible. The plaintiff was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
§ 72 Abs. 5 ArbGG, § 555 Abs. 1 Satz 1 ZPO, § 313a Abs. 1 Satz 2 ZPO; where the parties waive findings of fact and reasons in a revision procedure because a parallel lead case is pending, the Federal Labor Court may decide without a reasoned statement. The dispositive clarification that the claims are dismissed as inadmissible distinguishes procedural inadmissibility from a merits-based rejection. The cost consequence follows the usual unsuccessful-party principle.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2011-11-16
Aktenzeichen: 4 AZR 835/09
Dokumenttyp: Urteil
Vorinstanz: vorgehend ArbG Leipzig, 28. Mai 2009, Az: 14 Ca 5099/08, Urteilvorgehend Sächsisches Landesarbeitsgericht, 29. Oktober 2009, Az: 6 Sa 338/09, Urteil
Spruchkörper: 4. Senat
Die Revision der Klägerin gegen das Urteil des Sächsischen Landesarbeitsgerichts vom 29. Oktober 2009 - 6 Sa 338/09 - wird mit der Maßgabe zurückgewiesen, dass die Klagen als unzulässig zurückgewiesen werden.
Die Klägerin hat die Kosten des Rechtsstreits zu tragen.
1
Die Parteien haben im Hinblick auf das führende Parallelverfahren - 4 AZR 839/09 - auf Tatbestand und Entscheidungsgründe verzichtet ( § 72 Abs. 5 ArbGG , § 555 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 313a Abs. 1 Satz 2 ZPO ) .
| Bepler | Treber | Winter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| von Dassel | J. Ratayczak |
Von Omnilex extrahiert
Whether the revision against the Saxon Regional Labor Court judgment was successful.
The revision was dismissed; the appellate judgment remained in place, but the claims were dismissed as inadmissible.
The court decided the case without a statement of facts or reasons due to the parallel lead proceedings and upheld the outcome, adding that the claims had to be dismissed as inadmissible.
How the claims were to be classified procedurally.
The claims were dismissed as inadmissible.
The dispositive part expressly clarifies that the claims are not rejected on the merits but as procedurally inadmissible.
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.