Non-admission complaint inadmissible due to low amount in dispute

BGH VIII ZR 125/10Bgh / Civil Chamber 815 giu 2010Inadmissible

Estratto da Omnilex

Sintesi Omnilex

The Federal Court of Justice dismissed as inadmissible the plaintiffs' complaint against non-admission of revision against the Cologne Regional Court's judgment. The decisive reason was that the amount in dispute relevant for revision did not exceed EUR 20,000, so the statutory complaint route was unavailable under § 26 Nr. 8 sentence 1 EGZPO; sentence 2 did not apply because the appeal had been rejected on the merits, not as inadmissible. In addition, the complaint was not filed by a lawyer admitted to the Federal Court of Justice. The plaintiffs were ordered to bear the costs.

Massima Omnilex

§ 26 Nr. 8 Satz 1 EGZPO; complaint against non-admission of revision admissible only if the value of the grievance exceeds EUR 20,000. The threshold must be examined with reference to the revision-related burden asserted by the complainant. § 26 Nr. 8 Satz 2 EGZPO is inapplicable where the court of appeal has dismissed the appeal on the merits and not rejected it as inadmissible. Separate from the value requirement, the complaint must be filed by a lawyer admitted before the Federal Court of Justice in accordance with § 78 Abs. 1 Satz 3 and § 544 Abs. 1 Satz 2 ZPO; non-compliance results in inadmissibility. Costs follow § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO.

Testo completo

BGH — VIII ZR 125/10, Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2010-06-15

Aktenzeichen: VIII ZR 125/10

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: § 26 Nr 8 S 1 ZPOEG, § 78 Abs 1 S 3 ZPO, § 544 Abs 1 S 2 ZPO

Vorinstanz: vorgehend LG Köln, 18. März 2010, Az: 1 S 195/08, Urteilvorgehend AG Köln, 27. Mai 2008, Az: 201 C 12/08

Spruchkörper: 8. Zivilsenat

Titelzeile

Beschwerde gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision

Tenor

Die Beschwerde gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil der 1. Zivilkammer des Landgerichts Köln vom 18. März 2010 wird auf Kosten der Kläger als unzulässig verworfen.

Wert des Beschwerdegegenstands: 4.612 €

Gründe

1 Die Beschwerde ist nicht statthaft, weil der Wert der mit der Revision geltend zu machenden Beschwer 20.000 € nicht übersteigt (§ 26 Nr. 8 Satz 1 EGZPO). Entgegen der Auffassung der Beschwerdeführer ist Satz 2 dieser Vorschrift nicht einschlägig, weil das Berufungsgericht die Berufung der Kläger nicht (als unzulässig) verworfen, sondern (als unbegründet) zurückgewiesen hat. Überdies ist die Beschwerde entgegen § 78 Abs. 1 Satz 3, § 544 Abs. 1 Satz 2 ZPO nicht durch einen beim Bundesgerichtshof zugelassenen Rechtsanwalt eingelegt worden und auch aus diesem Grunde unzulässig.

2 Die Kostenentscheidung beruht auf § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO.

Ball Dr. Frellesen Dr. Milger

Dr. Fetzer Dr. Bünger

Parole chiave

non-admission complaintrevisionadmissibilityamount in disputeBGH counselcosts

Estratto da Omnilex

Questione giuridica chiave

Whether the complaint against non-admission of revision is admissible despite a value below EUR 20,000.

Decisione estratta

No. The value of the complaint for purposes of the revision did not exceed EUR 20,000, so the complaint was not statutorily available.

Motivazione estratta

Under § 26 Nr. 8 sentence 1 EGZPO, the complaint is unavailable if the amount of the appellate grievance does not exceed EUR 20,000. Sentence 2 did not apply because the appellate court had rejected the appeal on the merits, not dismissed it as inadmissible.

Questione giuridica chiave

Whether the complaint was validly filed through counsel admitted before the Federal Court of Justice.

Decisione estratta

No. It was not filed by a lawyer admitted to practice before the Federal Court of Justice, which independently rendered it inadmissible.

Motivazione estratta

The filing failed to comply with § 78 Abs. 1 sentence 3 and § 544 Abs. 1 sentence 2 ZPO, which require representation by a BGH-admitted lawyer for this procedural step.

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.