BGH VIII ZA 14/10•Legal aid denied: court protocol not sufficient proof of rent defects
BGH VIII ZA 14/10Bgh / Civil Chamber 8Nov 2, 2010Dismissed
Extracted by Omnilex
The defendant tenant sought legal aid for an intended challenge in a rent-arrears document proceeding, arguing rent-reduction defects and relying on a court protocol. The Federal Court denied legal aid. It held that the protocol could not serve as documentary proof because, without the approvals required by the Code of Civil Procedure, it lacked the evidentiary force of a public document. As a result, the intended defence did not show sufficient prospects of success.
§ 114 ZPO; legal aid requires sufficient prospects of success; a court protocol can serve as proof only if it has the evidentiary force of a public document. A protocol lacking the approvals required by § 160 Abs. 3 Nr. 5 and § 162 Abs. 1 ZPO is not a public document within the meaning of § 418 ZPO and therefore is unsuitable as documentary evidence of asserted defects. The mere submission of such a protocol does not establish a defence with reasonable prospects in a document proceeding (consid. implied by the order).
Entscheidungsdatum: 2010-11-02
Aktenzeichen: VIII ZA 14/10
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 114 ZPO, § 160 Abs 3 Nr 5 ZPO, § 162 Abs 1 ZPO, § 418 ZPO
Vorinstanz: vorgehend LG Kiel, 1. Juni 2010, Az: 1 S 91/09vorgehend AG Neumünster, 20. Juli 2009, Az: 36 C 471/09
Spruchkörper: 8. Zivilsenat
Urkundenprozess des Wohnraumvermieters auf Zahlung rückständigen Mietzins: Prozesskostenhilfe für den Mieter bei Einwendung von Mietminderungsansprüchen gestützt auf ein gerichtliches Protokoll
Der Antrag der Beklagten auf Bewilligung von Prozesskostenhilfe wird abgelehnt, weil die beabsichtigte Rechtsverfolgung keine hinreichende Aussicht auf Erfolg bietet (§ 114 Satz 1 ZPO).
Das von der Beklagten vorgelegte gerichtliche Protokoll ist schon deswegen zum urkundlichen Beweis der behaupteten Mängel ungeeignet, weil ihm in Ermangelung der nach § 160 Abs. 3 Nr. 5, § 162 Abs. 1 ZPO erforderlichen Genehmigung die Beweiskraft als öffentliche Urkunde (§ 418 ZPO) fehlt (BGH, Beschlüsse vom 18. Januar 1984 - IVb ZB 53/83, NJW 1984, 1465 unter II 1 c bb; vom 4. Juli 2007 - XII ZB 14/07, NJW-RR 2007, 1451 Rn. 8; Musielak/Stadler, ZPO, 7. Aufl., § 162 Rn. 5; Zöller/Stöber, ZPO, 28. Aufl., § 162 Rn. 6).
Ball Dr. Frellesen Dr. Milger
Dr. Achilles Dr. Bünger
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether the tenant was entitled to legal aid for the intended proceeding
Legal aid was refused because the intended defence lacked sufficient prospects of success.
The alleged defects could not be proved by the submitted court protocol, since without the required approval it did not have the evidentiary force of a public document.
Whether the submitted court protocol had probative value as proof of the alleged defects
It was unsuitable as documentary proof because the missing approval deprived it of the evidentiary force of a public document.
Under the procedural rules, the protocol needed approval to count as a public document; without it, documentary proof failed.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.