BGH VIII ZR 352/12•Costs after joint mootness declaration; no differentiated value
BGH VIII ZR 352/12Bgh / Civil Chamber 8Aug 26, 2014Modified
Extracted by Omnilex
The Federal Court of Justice decided a cost-only matter after the parties jointly declared the main proceedings moot. It ordered the defendant to bear the costs in the appellate instances and left the first-instance cost decision of the Local Court unchanged, taking into account the partial withdrawal. The Court also fixed the revision dispute value at EUR 602.20 and rejected a differentiated valuation before and after the mootness declaration because the cost amount exceeded the main claim value.
§ 91a ZPO; costs after joint declaration of mootness: the court decides on costs according to equitable discretion, taking into account the likely outcome and the procedural situation. If the costs incurred already exceed the value of the main claim, no differentiated dispute value is required for periods before and after mootness, because the value after mootness is capped by the main claim value. The first-instance cost allocation remains undisturbed where no error is shown; the appellate court may confine itself to the cost consequences of the mootness declaration (consid. not specified).
Entscheidungsdatum: 2014-08-26
Aktenzeichen: VIII ZR 352/12
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 91a ZPO
Vorinstanz: vorgehend BGH, 22. Januar 2014, Az: VIII ZR 352/12, Beschlussvorgehend LG Itzehoe, 28. September 2012, Az: 9 S 27/12, Urteilvorgehend AG Pinneberg, 26. Januar 2012, Az: 82 C 6/11
Spruchkörper: 8. Zivilsenat
Kostenentscheidung: Differenzierung hinsichtlich des Streitwerts für die Zeit vor und nach übereinstimmender Hauptsacheerledigungserklärung
Die Beklagte hat die Kosten des Rechtsstreits in den Rechtsmittelinstanzen zu tragen.
Bezüglich der Kosten der ersten Instanz verbleibt es bei der (die teilweise Klagerücknahme berücksichtigenden) Entscheidung des Amtsgerichts im Urteil vom 26. Januar 2012.
Der Streitwert für die Revisionsinstanz wird auf 602,20 € festgesetzt.
Eine Differenzierung des Streitwerts für die Zeit vor und nach der übereinstimmenden Erledigungserklärung ist nicht veranlasst, weil die Kosten hier den Streitwert der Hauptsache übersteigen und dieser die Obergrenze für den Streitwert nach Erledigung der Hauptsache bildet (vgl. BGH, Urteil vom 11. Juli 1990 - XII ZR 10/90, NJW-RR 1990, 1474 unter 1).
Dr. Milger Dr. Hessel Dr. Achilles
Dr. Fetzer Kosziol
Extracted by Omnilex
How are the costs in the appellate instances to be allocated after joint mootness of the main claim?
The defendant must bear the costs of the proceedings in the appellate instances.
Under the case-specific allocation following the mootness declaration, the appellate costs were imposed on the defendant.
How are the first-instance costs to be treated after partial withdrawal and mootness?
The first-instance cost allocation remains as ordered by the Local Court in its judgment of 26 January 2012, including the partial withdrawal.
There was no reason to alter the first-instance cost decision.
Must the dispute value be differentiated between the period before and after the joint declaration of mootness?
No differentiated dispute value was set; the revision value was fixed at EUR 602.20.
A differentiation was unnecessary because the costs in this case exceeded the main claim value, which forms the upper limit for the value after mootness of the main matter.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.