Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
IX R 10/11 AI generated

Inadmissibility of motion to correct factual findings due to lack of mandatory legal representation before the Federal Finance Court

Case Number IX R 10/11
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Finance Court (BFH) dismissed the plaintiff's motion to correct the factual findings of a prior judgment, ruling the application inadmissible and leaving the original decision in force. The dispute arose from a procedural attempt to rectify the factual description of the court's earlier ruling, which had been filed directly by the party without legal representation. The decisive legal basis for the dismissal was the mandatory representation rule (Vertretungszwang) for proceedings before the BFH, established under § 108 of the Fiscal Courts Act (FGO) and § 62(4) FGO, which requires parties to be represented by a qualified legal counsel for such applications.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Inadmissibility of motion to correct factual findings due to lack of mandatory legal representation before the Federal Finance Court: Der Antrag des Klägers und Revisionsbeklagten auf Berichtigung des Tatbestandes des Urteils des Bundesfinanzhofs (BFH) vom 20. November 2012 ist unzulässig und deshalb zurückzuweisen. Denn hierfür gilt gemäß § 108 der Finanzgerichtsordnung (FGO) Vertretungszwang (§ 62 Abs. 4 FGO; BFH-Beschluss vom 10. Juli 2002 IX K 1/02, BFH/NV 2002, 1341). Dieser ist vorliegend nicht gewahrt.

Keywords

AI generated
mandatory legal representation factual basis procedural rules serious defect in foreign proceedings failure to provide evidence action for a declaratory judgment
AI generated
IX S 26/17
Inadmissibility of hearing motion due to mandatory representation requirement under FGO
IX B 111/18
Inadmissibility of non-admission complaint for lack of mandatory professional representation before the Federal Finance Court
IV S 23/12
§ 86 Abs. 3 FGO motion inadmissible after main proceeding concluded and due to lack of mandatory representation
XI B 113/14
Inadmissibility of fact correction for non-admission ruling due to lack of legal interest and exclusion of oral hearing
VIII R 42/09
Inadmissibility of motion to fix litigation value where amount is self-evident from revision petitions

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Vertretungszwang bei Antrag auf Tatbestandsberichtigung

[LEITSATZ]

NV: Für einen Antrag auf Tatbestandsberichtigung gilt vor dem Bundesfinanzhof der Vertretungszwang .

[GRUENDE]

Der Antrag des Klägers und Revisionsbeklagten auf Berichtigung des Tatbestandes des Urteils des Bundesfinanzhofs (BFH) vom 20. November 2012 ist unzulässig und deshalb zurückzuweisen. Denn hierfür gilt gemäß § 108 der Finanzgerichtsordnung (FGO) Vertretungszwang (§ 62 Abs. 4 FGO; BFH-Beschluss vom 10. Juli 2002 IX K 1/02, BFH/NV 2002, 1341). Dieser ist vorliegend nicht gewahrt.