Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
B 9 SB 30/25 AR ECLI:DE:BSG:2025:060825BB9SB3025AR0 Generato dall'IA

Inadmissibility of non-admission of revision complaint due to lack of mandatory attorney representation before the Federal Social Court

Numero d'incarto B 9 SB 30/25 AR
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Inammissibile (Inadmissible)
Spese processuali senza spese
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Social Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against the non-admission of revision as inadmissible, thereby upholding the judgment of the Saxon State Social Court. The dispute arose when the plaintiff filed a letter directly with the lower court maintaining his appeal following the delivery of the appellate decision; the Federal Social Court construed this submission as a complaint against the non-admission of revision, the only remaining legal remedy, but found it defective. The decisive legal basis was the mandatory requirement under § 73 Abs 4 SGG for representation by an authorized attorney before the Federal Social Court, a requirement the plaintiff failed to meet; consequently, the improperly filed complaint was rejected pursuant to § 160a Abs 4 SGG without the involvement of lay judges, and no costs were awarded.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 73 Abs 4 SGG, § 160a Abs 1 Satz 2 SGG, § 193 SGG, § 64 Abs 2 und 3, § 160a Abs 1 Satz 2 SGG, § 160a Abs 4 Satz 1 Halbsatz 2 SGG iVm § 169 Satz 2 und 3 SGG; Inadmissibility of non-admission of revision complaint due to lack of mandatory attorney representation before the Federal Social Court: The dispute arose when the plaintiff filed a letter directly with the lower court maintaining his appeal following the delivery of the appellate decision; the Federal Social Court construed this submission as a complaint against the non-admission of revision, the only remaining legal remedy, but found it defective. The decisive legal basis was the mandatory requirement under § 73 Abs 4 SGG for representation by an authorized attorney before the Federal Social Court, a requirement the plaintiff failed to meet; consequently, the improperly filed complaint was rejected pursuant to § 160a Abs 4 SGG without the involvement of lay judges, and no costs were awarded.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
patrocinio obbligatorio revisione di una decisione motivazione inadeguata delle censure costituzionali procedura di assicurazioni sociali divieto di rappresentanza dell'avvocato autorizzazione ad agire

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 73 Abs 4 SGG
Main ground for the dismissal of the complaint as the plaintiff failed to be represented by an authorized attorney as required by this provision.
§ 160a Abs 1 Satz 2 SGG
Die Beschwerde ist unzulässig, da sie nicht von einem gemäß § 73 Abs 4 SGG vor dem BSG zugelassenen Prozessbevollmächtigten innerhalb der einmonatigen Beschwerdefrist, die am 23.6.2025 ablief, eingelegt worden ist (§ 64 Abs 2 und 3, § 73 Abs 4, § 160a Abs 1 Satz 2 SGG).
§ 193 SGG
Die Kostenentscheidung beruht auf einer entsprechenden Anwendung des § 193 SGG.
§ 64 Abs 2 und 3, § 160a Abs 1 Satz 2 SGG
Procedural basis establishing the one-month deadline and the admissibility conditions for the complaint against the non-admission of revision.
§ 160a Abs 4 Satz 1 Halbsatz 2 SGG iVm § 169 Satz 2 und 3 SGG
Procedural rule authorizing the rejection of the non-compliant complaint by order without the involvement of lay judges.
Generato dall'IA
B 13 R 83/15 B
Inadmissibility of revision complaint at the Federal Social Court for lack of mandatory legal representation
B 9 SB 21/11 B
Mandatory representation at the Federal Social Court and non-admission of revision as an inadmissible complaint
B 8 SO 71/10 B
Inadmissibility of non-admission complaint for lack of authorized counsel and failure to meet statutory form requirements for appeal
B 5 R 23/24 AR
Inadmissibility of revision for lack of admissibility admission and mandatory representation; prohibition of recharacterization as non-allowance complaint
VIII ZR 125/10
Inadmissibility of revision complaint due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and non-compliance with attorney representation requirements

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 73 Abs 4 SGG

Main ground for the dismissal of the complaint as the plaintiff failed to be represented by an authorized attorney as required by this provision.

§ 64 Abs 2 und 3, § 160a Abs 1 Satz 2 SGG

Procedural basis establishing the one-month deadline and the admissibility conditions for the complaint against the non-admission of revision.

§ 160a Abs 4 Satz 1 Halbsatz 2 SGG iVm § 169 Satz 2 und 3 SGG

Procedural rule authorizing the rejection of the non-compliant complaint by order without the involvement of lay judges.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Sozialgerichtliches Verfahren - Auslegung eines nach Zustellung des Berufungsurteils an das LSG gerichteten Schriftsatzes als Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde - Vertretungszwang vor dem BSG

[TENOR]

Die Beschwerde des Klägers gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision im Urteil des Sächsischen Landessozialgerichts vom 14. Mai 2025 wird als unzulässig verworfen.

Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens sind nicht zu erstatten.

[GRUENDE]

Der Kläger hat nach Zustellung des vorgenannten Urteils des LSG am 21.5.2025 in einem an das LSG gerichteten und von ihm selbst unterzeichneten Schriftsatz vom 10.6.2025 die "Berufung aufrechterhalten".

Der Senat legt die Eingabe des Klägers als Beschwerde gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision im Urteil des LSG vom 14.5.2025 aus, weil es sich dabei um das einzige statthafte Rechtsmittel gegen diese Entscheidung handelt.

Die Beschwerde ist unzulässig, da sie nicht von einem gemäß § 73 Abs 4 SGG vor dem BSG zugelassenen Prozessbevollmächtigten innerhalb der einmonatigen Beschwerdefrist, die am 23.6.2025 ablief, eingelegt worden ist (§ 64 Abs 2 und 3, § 73 Abs 4, § 160a Abs 1 Satz 2 SGG). Auf das Erfordernis, sich vor dem BSG durch einen der in § 73 Abs 4 SGG aufgeführten Prozessbevollmächtigten vertreten zu lassen, ist der Kläger in der Rechtsmittelbelehrung der LSG-Entscheidung hingewiesen worden. Das somit nicht der gesetzlichen Form entsprechende Rechtsmittel ist gemäß § 160a Abs 4 Satz 1 Halbsatz 2 SGG iVm § 169 Satz 2 und 3 SGG durch Beschluss ohne Zuziehung der ehrenamtlichen Richter zu verwerfen.

Die Kostenentscheidung beruht auf einer entsprechenden Anwendung des § 193 SGG.