BGH VII ZR 61/09•Architect’s fee claim: revision not admitted
BGH VII ZR 61/09Bgh / Civil Chamber 7Apr 8, 2010Dismissed
Extracted by Omnilex
In a non-admission complaint in an architect fee case, the Federal Court of Justice rejected the plaintiff’s request to admit revision against the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Rostock. The Senate held that concerns about the appellate court’s reasoning on the contractual basis for determining the costs underlying the fee calculation did not establish a ground for admission. The complaint was therefore dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the complaint proceedings.
§ 544 Abs. 4 Satz 2 ZPO; admission of revision by way of complaint against non-admission: mere doubts about the appellate court’s reasoning do not suffice. Revision is to be admitted only if a statutory ground for admission exists; a possibly debatable assessment of the contractual basis for the cost calculation underlying an architect’s fee claim does not, by itself, justify admission. The Federal Court of Justice may refrain from further reasoning when additional remarks would not contribute to clarification of the admission requirements.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2010-04-08
Aktenzeichen: VII ZR 61/09
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 631 BGB, § 4 Abs 1 AIHonO, § 4 Abs 4 AIHonO, § 15 AIHonO, § 16 AIHonO, § 17 AIHonO
Vorinstanz: vorgehend OLG Rostock, 25. Februar 2009, Az: 2 U 21/07, Urteilvorgehend LG Stralsund, 22. Februar 2007, Az: 7 O 22/04
Spruchkörper: 7. Zivilsenat
Architektenhonoraranspruch: Honorarvereinbarung außerhalb der Sätze der HOAI
Die Beschwerde des Klägers gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 2. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Rostock vom 25. Februar 2009 wird zurückgewiesen.
Bedenken gegen die rechtlichen Ausführungen des Berufungsgerichts zu den vertraglichen Grundlagen für die Ermittlung der der Abrechnung zugrunde zu legenden Kosten veranlassen die Zulassung der Revision nicht, weil insoweit ein Zulassungsgrund nicht vorliegt.
Von einer weiteren Begründung wird abgesehen, weil sie nicht geeignet wäre, zur Klärung der Voraussetzungen beizutragen, unter denen eine Revision zuzulassen ist (§ 544 Abs. 4 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO).
Der Kläger trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Gegenstandswert: 45.932,87 €
Kniffka Kuffer Bauner
Safari Chabestari Leupertz
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether revision should be admitted against the Higher Regional Court’s judgment in the architect fee dispute.
Revision was not admitted; the complaint against non-admission was rejected.
The Senate saw no ground for admission. Even if there were concerns about the appellate court’s reasoning on the contractual basis for calculating the invoiced costs, that alone did not justify admission of revision.
Who bears the costs of the non-admission complaint proceedings?
The plaintiff bears the costs of the complaint proceedings.
As the complaint failed, costs were imposed on the complaining party under the procedural cost rule cited by the court.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.