Background
The case originated in the Stralsund Regional Court (Landgericht Stralsund) on November 24, 2023, in case 3 HKO 24/20, involving a civil claim with a dispute value up to €22,000. The defendant appealed to the Rostock Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht Rostock), which issued a decision on June 23, 2025, in case 5 U 73/23. Following the appellate court’s decision against the defendant, the defendant filed a motion to permit an appeal (Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde) to the Federal Court of Justice, seeking review of the appellate decision.
A motion to permit an appeal in German civil procedure is not an automatic right; the Federal Court must grant permission based on specific criteria set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung—ZPO).
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court of Justice rejected the defendant’s motion to permit an appeal. The court held that the case satisfied none of the criteria required for appellate review: it lacks fundamental legal importance, does not require development of law, and does not necessitate the court’s decision to ensure uniform application of the law. Under § 543 Abs. 2 ZPO, these are the threshold requirements for permitting an appeal.
The court found that regarding the legal basis of the claim (Anspruchsgrund), the defendant’s motion raised no clarification issues beyond those already addressed in the court’s prior decision of May 8, 2018, in case VI ZR 295/17. With respect to questions concerning the amount of the claim, the defendant failed to demonstrate that these issues were relevant to the outcome of the present case. Consequently, the motion lacked the necessary legal weight to warrant review. The defendant was ordered to bear all costs of the motion proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Motions to permit appeal to the German Federal Court of Justice require demonstration of fundamental legal importance, need for legal development, or necessity to ensure uniform jurisprudence.
- Reliance on prior settled case law is grounds to deny permission to appeal when the same legal questions have already been comprehensively addressed.
- Procedural arguments about claim amount, if not shown to be relevant to the actual decision, will not support a motion to permit appeal.
- The defendant bears financial responsibility for a failed motion to permit appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the Federal Court of Justice’s gatekeeping function in German civil appeals. Not every appellate decision reaches the BGH; the court exercises strict discretion to review only cases of genuine legal significance. This decision reinforces that mere disagreement with an appellate result is insufficient to trigger review—the defendant must articulate either a new legal question, a conflict with prior case law, or a matter of broader jurisprudential importance.
For practitioners, the decision underscores the importance of framing appellate motions strategically. Defendants must clearly identify novel legal issues or gaps in existing precedent; reiterating arguments already addressed in prior BGH decisions will be summarily rejected, along with unfounded claims about unresolved subsidiary issues.