BGH I ZB 65/10•Rechtsbeschwerde inadmissible due to missed deadline and lack of BGH counsel
BGH I ZB 65/10Bgh / Civil Chamber IApr 14, 2011Dismissed
Extracted by Omnilex
The Federal Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiff's Rechtsbeschwerde against the Munich I Regional Court. It held that the remedy was inadmissible both because it was filed after the one-month deadline and because it was not lodged by a lawyer admitted to the Federal Court of Justice. The court also stated that any request for appointment of such counsel would have to be rejected as the case lacked prospects of success. The Regional Court's dismissal of the appeal as inadmissible was therefore upheld. Costs were imposed on the plaintiff.
§ 522 Abs. 1 S. 4 ZPO, § 575 Abs. 1 S. 1 ZPO; Rechtsbeschwerde to the Federal Court of Justice is inadmissible if not filed within the statutory one-month period after service and if not lodged through a lawyer admitted before the Federal Court of Justice. A request for appointment of BGH counsel must be refused where the intended legal pursuit is manifestly without prospects of success. If the challenged appellate court rightly rejected the appeal as inadmissible, the Rechtsbeschwerde cannot succeed; see consid. 1.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2011-04-14
Aktenzeichen: I ZB 65/10
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 522 Abs 1 S 4 ZPO
Vorinstanz: vorgehend LG München I, 2. Juni 2010, Az: 30 S 6928/10, Beschlussvorgehend AG München, 25. März 2010, Az: 161 C 3629/10
Spruchkörper: 1. Zivilsenat
Rechtsbeschwerde: Qualifizierter Anwaltszwang
Die Rechtsbeschwerde gegen den Beschluss der Zivilkammer 30 des Landgerichts München I vom 2. Juni 2010 wird auf Kosten des Klägers verworfen.
Beschwerdewert: 1.000 €
1 Die an sich statthafte Rechtsbeschwerde (§ 522 Abs. 1 Satz 4 ZPO) ist unzulässig, weil sie nicht in der im Gesetz vorgesehenen Frist von einem Monat nach Zustellung (§ 575 Abs. 1 Satz 1 ZPO) eingelegt worden ist. Sie ist aber auch deswegen unzulässig, weil sie nicht von einem beim Bundesgerichtshof zugelassenen Rechtsanwalt eingelegt worden ist. Soweit in dem Vorbringen des Klägers ein Antrag auf Beiordnung eines Rechtsanwalts beim Bundesgerichtshof zu sehen ist, wäre ein solcher Antrag zurückzuweisen, weil die Rechtsverfolgung aussichtslos erscheint. Das Landgericht hat die Berufung des Klägers zu Recht als unzulässig verworfen.
Bornkamm Pokrant Büscher
Schaffert Löffler
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether the Rechtsbeschwerde was filed within the one-month statutory time limit
The Rechtsbeschwerde was inadmissible because it was not filed within one month after service.
Section 575(1) sentence 1 ZPO required filing within one month; this was not met.
Whether the Rechtsbeschwerde complied with the qualified representation requirement before the Federal Court of Justice
The Rechtsbeschwerde was also inadmissible because it was not filed by a lawyer admitted before the Federal Court of Justice.
Appeals before the Federal Court of Justice require qualified counsel; the filing did not satisfy this requirement. Any implied request for appointment of BGH counsel would fail because the case had no prospects of success.
Whether the Regional Court correctly dismissed the appeal as inadmissible
Yes, the Regional Court correctly dismissed the appeal as inadmissible.
The Federal Court found no error in the Regional Court's procedural disposition.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.