Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
BGH I ZA 1/15•Heard complaint rejected; no new Art. 103(1) GG violation
BGH I ZA 1/15Bgh / I. Zivilkammer09.07.2015Dismissed
Von Omnilex extrahiert
The Federal Court rejected the applicant's hearing complaint against its order of 12 April 2015. It held that only new and independent violations of the right to be heard by the appellate court can be raised in such a complaint, and that no such violation was shown. The court also noted that the intended non-admission complaint was not statutorily available.
Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG; hearing complaint against an appellate court decision; scope of review limited to new, autonomous violations of the right to be heard committed by the court seized of the complaint. Allegations directed merely against the earlier merits assessment are inadmissible or unfounded. If no separate hearing violation is established, the hearing complaint must be dismissed. An intended non-admission complaint that is not statutorily provided for cannot succeed (consid. 1).
Entscheidungsdatum: 2015-07-09
Aktenzeichen: I ZA 1/15
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Vorinstanz: vorgehend BGH, 10. April 2015, Az: I ZA 1/15, Beschlussvorgehend OLG Nürnberg, 6. November 2014, Az: 3 W 2178/14vorgehend LG Nürnberg-Fürth, 15. August 2014, Az: 4 HKO 4892/14
Spruchkörper: 1. Zivilsenat
Die Anhörungsrüge gegen den Beschluss des Senats vom 12. April 2015 wird zurückgewiesen.
1 Die Anhörungsrüge des Antragstellers ist unbegründet. Mit der Anhörungsrüge können nur neue und eigenständige Verletzungen des Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG durch das Rechtsmittelgericht gerügt werden (BVerfG, Kammerbeschluss vom 5. Mai 2008 - 1 BvR 562/08, NJW 2008, 2635 Rn. 16; BGH, NJW-RR 2011, 640 Rn. 5). Derartige Verstöße liegen ersichtlich nicht vor. Die vom Antragsteller beabsichtigte Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde ist nicht statthaft.
Büscher Kirchhoff Koch
Löffler Feddersen
Von Omnilex extrahiert
Whether the hearing complaint under Art. 103(1) GG was admissible and well-founded.
The complaint was unfounded because no new and independent violation of the right to be heard by the appellate court was shown.
A hearing complaint can only allege new, autonomous violations of Art. 103(1) GG by the court of appeal; such a violation was not apparent here.
Whether the intended non-admission complaint was statutorily permissible.
No; the intended non-admission complaint was not admissible.
The court stated expressly that the intended remedy was not statutorily available.
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.