Refusal to appoint counsel for inadmissible non-admission appeal

BGH VIII ZR 294/12Bgh / Civil Chamber 8Nov 20, 2012Dismissed

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The defendant requested appointment of a lawyer for an intended non-admission appeal against the Berlin Regional Court's decision. The Federal Court of Justice refused the request because the contemplated appeal had no prospect of success and was in any event inadmissible: the value in dispute clearly did not exceed EUR 20,000. The Senate also stated that there is no legal basis for a provisional admission of an attorney not admitted to appear before the Federal Court of Justice.

Omnilex headnote

§ 78b Abs. 2 ZPO; § 26 Nr. 8 EGZPO: A court-appointed lawyer is to be assigned only if the intended legal remedy is not manifestly hopeless and the party cannot otherwise obtain representation; where a contemplated non-admission appeal is inadmissible because the statutory amount in dispute is not reached, the request must be refused. A provisional authorization of a lawyer not admitted to the Federal Court of Justice has no statutory basis.

Full text

BGH — VIII ZR 294/12, Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2012-11-20

Aktenzeichen: VIII ZR 294/12

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: § 26 Nr 8 ZPOEG, § 78b Abs 2 ZPO

Vorinstanz: vorgehend LG Berlin, 4. September 2012, Az: 63 S 137/12vorgehend AG Schöneberg, 22. März 2012, Az: 106 C 15/11

Spruchkörper: 8. Zivilsenat

Titelzeile

Beiordnung eines Notanwalts für eine Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde

Tenor

Der Antrag des Beklagten auf Beiordnung eines Rechtsanwalts wird zurückgewiesen.

Gründe

1 Die Beiordnung eines Anwalts (Notanwalts) kommt nicht in Betracht, weil die Rechtsverfolgung des Beklagten - unabhängig von der Frage der rechtzeitigen Rechtsmitteleinlegung - aussichtslos ist (§ 78 b Abs. 2 ZPO). Die beabsichtigte Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde gegen den Beschluss des Landgerichts Berlin vom 4. September 2012 ist auch deshalb unzulässig, weil der nach § 26 Nr. 8 EGZPO erforderliche Beschwerdewert von mehr als 20.000 € durch die Verurteilung des Beklagten zur Zustimmung zu einer monatlichen Mieterhöhung um 96 €, zur Räumung des zusätzlich zur Wohnung im zweiten OG im ersten OG angemieteten Zimmers und zur Entfernung eines Regals aus der Waschküche - offensichtlich - nicht erreicht ist.

2 Für die "vorläufige Zulassung" eines nicht am Bundesgerichtshof zugelassenen Anwalts durch den Senat gibt es keine Rechtsgrundlage.

Ball Dr. Milger Dr. Hessel

Dr. Fetzer Dr. Bünger

Keywords

appointment of counselnon-admission appealamount in disputeinadmissibilityprospect of successlandlord-tenant

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether a court-appointed lawyer should be assigned for the intended non-admission appeal.

Extracted holding

Appointment was refused because the intended appeal had no prospect of success.

Extracted reasoning

Under Section 78b(2) ZPO, a notary counsel is unavailable when the contemplated legal remedy is hopeless; the planned non-admission appeal would also be inadmissible for failure to meet the statutory value threshold.

Key legal question

Whether the intended non-admission appeal was admissible despite the amount in dispute requirement.

Extracted holding

No; the appeal value of more than EUR 20,000 was manifestly not reached.

Extracted reasoning

The underlying order concerned only a monthly rent increase of EUR 96, surrender of an additional room, and removal of a shelf, which clearly falls short of the threshold under Section 26 No. 8 EGZPO.

Key legal question

Whether there was a basis for a provisional admission of a non-admitted attorney before the Federal Court of Justice.

Extracted holding

No legal basis existed for such provisional admission.

Extracted reasoning

The Senate expressly stated that no legal basis exists for the requested provisional authorization of an attorney not admitted to the Federal Court of Justice.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.