{"status":"available","ecli":null,"court":"BGH","senate":"Senat fuer Landwirtschaftssachen","decided":"2007-10-02","aktenzeichen":"BLw 1/07","doktyp":"Beschluss","leitsatz":null,"text_plain":"BUNDESGERICHTSHOF \n\nBLw 1/07 \n\nBESCHLUSS \n\nvom \n\n2. Oktober 2007 \n\nin dem Rechtsstreit \n\nDer Bundesgerichtshof, Senat für Landwirtschaftssachen, hat am 2. Oktober \n\n2007 durch den Vorsitzenden Richter Prof. Dr. Krüger, die Richterin Dr. Stre-\n\nsemann und den Richter Dr. Czub - gemäß § 20 Abs. 1 Nr. 4 LwVG ohne Zu-\n\nziehung ehrenamtlicher Richter - \n\nbeschlossen: \n\nDie Rechtsbeschwerde gegen den Beschluss des Landwirt-\n\nschaftssenats \n\ndes Oberlandesgerichts München \n\nvom \n\n20. Oktober 2006 wird auf Kosten des Rechtsbeschwerdeführers \n\nals unzulässig verworfen, weil sie nicht innerhalb der bis zum \n\n10. September 2007 verlängerten Frist begründet worden ist, \n\n§§ 27 Abs. 2 LwVG, 552 Abs. 1 ZPO. Dem am letzten Tag der \n\nFrist von dem Rechtsbeschwerdeführer selbst gestellten weiteren \n\nFristverlängerungsantrag konnte nicht entsprochen werden, weil \n\nvor dem Bundesgerichtshof Anwaltszwang herrscht (§ 29 LwVG). \n\nDer Gegenstandswert des Rechtsbeschwerdeverfahrens beträgt: \n\n115.756,48 € \n\nKrüger \n\nStresemann \n\nCzub \n\nVorinstanzen: \nAG Traunstein, Entscheidung vom 01.02.2005 - 3 LWXV 2042/00 - \nOLG München, Entscheidung vom 20.10.2006 - 1 Lw WXV 1044/05 -","source":null,"source_url":null,"url":"https://recht.nulegal.eu/rechtsprechung/bgh/2007-10-02/blw-1-07","cited_norms":[{"jurabk":"LwVfG","ref":"§ 20","ref_norm":"20","n":1},{"jurabk":"LwVfG","ref":"§ 27","ref_norm":"27","n":1},{"jurabk":"LwVfG","ref":"§ 29","ref_norm":"29","n":1}],"authoritative_source":null,"attribution":null,"source_info":{"name":"nu:legal Deutsches Recht","operator":"Nulegal GmbH","terms":"https://recht.nulegal.eu/nutzungsbedingungen","attribution":"Source: nu:legal – recht.nulegal.eu","license_url":"https://recht.nulegal.eu/license","url":"https://recht.nulegal.eu/rechtsprechung/bgh/2007-10-02/blw-1-07","retrieved":"2026-07-10 22:04:50.311930+00:00"},"card":{"id":"bgh/2007-10-02/blw-1-07","court":"BGH","court_id":"bgh","court_as_stated":"BGH","panel":"Senat fuer Landwirtschaftssachen","date":"2007-10-02","dockets":["BLw 1/07"],"decision_type":"Beschluss","ecli":null,"ids":{"ecli":null},"cite_as":"BGH, Beschluss vom 02.10.2007 – BLw 1/07","url":"https://recht.nulegal.eu/rechtsprechung/bgh/2007-10-02/blw-1-07","headnotes":[],"leitsatz_status":"not_captured","tenor":null,"tenor_status":"not_marked","cited_norms":[{"id":"LwVfG/20","law":"LwVfG","abbreviation":"LwVfG","ref":"20","label":"§ 20 LwVfG","mentions":1},{"id":"LwVfG/27","law":"LwVfG","abbreviation":"LwVfG","ref":"27","label":"§ 27 LwVfG","mentions":1},{"id":"LwVfG/29","law":"LwVfG","abbreviation":"LwVfG","ref":"29","label":"§ 29 LwVfG","mentions":1}],"cited_norms_basis":"extracted_from_text","normenkette":null,"proceeding":{"entries":[{"position":1,"court":"AG Traunstein","court_id":null,"court_as_stated":"AG Traunstein","date":"2005-02-01","docket":"3 LWXV 2042/00","decision_type":null,"ecli":null,"id":null,"url":null,"is_this_decision":false,"is_held":false},{"position":2,"court":"OLG München","court_id":null,"court_as_stated":"OLG München","date":"2006-10-20","docket":"1 Lw WXV 1044/05","decision_type":null,"ecli":null,"id":null,"url":null,"is_this_decision":false,"is_held":false},{"position":3,"court":"BGH","court_id":"bgh","court_as_stated":"BGH","date":"2007-10-02","docket":"BLw 1/07","decision_type":"Beschluss","ecli":null,"id":"bgh/2007-10-02/blw-1-07","url":"https://recht.nulegal.eu/rechtsprechung/bgh/2007-10-02/blw-1-07","is_this_decision":true,"is_held":true}],"has_records":true,"note":"As the courts' records state it (getProceeding). No outcome is given."},"fundstellen":[],"provenance":{"source":null,"source_url":null,"retrieved_at":"2026-07-10T22:04:50.311930+00:00","text_quality":"native","attribution":null},"ai_summary":null,"ai_summary_available":false}}