BAG 10 AZR 204/15•Revisions inadmissible after waiver of reasons under § 313a ZPO
BAG 10 AZR 204/15Bag / Division 10Aug 3, 2016Dismissed
Extracted by Omnilex
The Federal Labour Court held that both parties' revisions against the Hessisches Landesarbeitsgericht judgment were inadmissible. The case arose in an employment dispute concerning reimbursement of holiday pay by social funds. The parties had waived the statement of facts and reasons under § 313a ZPO. The court therefore rejected both revisions and ordered the costs of the revision proceedings to be borne 20% by the plaintiff and 80% by the defendant.
§ 313a ZPO; admissibility of revisions after waiver of findings and reasons: Where the parties have validly waived the statement of facts and reasons, the appellate judgment may be rendered without them. A revision that does not meet the statutory admissibility requirements is to be rejected as inadmissible. The court confines itself to the dispositive ruling; costs are allocated according to the outcome of the inadmissible appellate proceedings (consid. unspecified).
Entscheidungsdatum: 2016-08-03
Aktenzeichen: 10 AZR 204/15
ECLI: ECLI:DE:BAG:2016:030816.U.10AZR204.15.0
Dokumenttyp: Urteil
Normen: § 313a ZPO
Vorinstanz: vorgehend ArbG Wiesbaden, 27. November 2013, Az: 7 Ca 2926/11, Urteilvorgehend Hessisches Landesarbeitsgericht, 4. Februar 2015, Az: 18 Sa 97/14, Urteil
Spruchkörper: 10. Senat
Sozialkassen - Rückerstattung von Urlaubsvergütung - Urteil ohne Tatbestand und Entscheidungsgründe
Die Revisionen des Klägers und der Beklagten gegen das Urteil des Hessischen Landesarbeitsgerichts vom 4. Februar 2015 - 18 Sa 97/14 - werden als unzulässig verworfen.
Die Kosten der Revision haben der Kläger zu 20 % und die Beklagte zu 80 % zu tragen.
1 Die Parteien haben gemäß § 313a ZPO auf die Darstellung von Tatbestand und Entscheidungsgründen verzichtet.
| Linck | Brune | W. Reinfelder | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Effenberger | Schürmann |
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether the plaintiff's and defendant's revisions against the appellate judgment were admissible.
Both revisions were inadmissible and therefore had to be rejected.
The decision refers to the procedural posture and the waiver under § 313a ZPO; the revisions did not satisfy the admissibility requirements.
Allocation of the costs of the revision proceedings.
The plaintiff bears 20% of the revision costs and the defendant 80%.
Costs were apportioned according to the outcome of the inadmissible revisions.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.