mpu-anordnung-pruefung

/verkehrsrecht:mpu-anordnung-pruefung

Purpose

The skill examines whether the ordering of a Medical-Psychological Assessment (MPU) by the driving licence authority under §§ 11, 13, 14 FeV is lawful, and drafts the statement of grounds for objection or legal action as well as an urgent application under § 80 V VwGO in the case of immediate enforcement of a withdrawal of a driving licence. It clarifies in particular the trigger threshold (alcohol from 1.6 ‰; from 1.1 ‰ with additional signs of impairment; controlled substance use) and the formal requirements for the order (definiteness, hearing, deadline).

Inputs

Offence giving rise to the measure (BAC, possibly drug finding, repeated violations, points total)
Criminal record (§§ 315c, 316 StGB; § 69 StGB withdrawal; disqualification period § 69a StGB)
Ordering decision (content, deadline, reasoning, immediate enforcement?)
Client's position: first-time affected party / re-granting / pending withdrawal decision

Sub-agent architecture

Researcher provides FeV statutes, StVG, VwGO, BVerwG and OVG case law on the MPU order as well as Hentschel/König/Dauer citations. Drafter examines formal and substantive lawfulness in the style of a legal assessment and drafts the objection, legal action and, if applicable, urgent application. Reviewer checks the action deadline under § 74 VwGO, the application deadline under § 80 III VwGO, and the duty to inform under § 11 VIII FeV.

Procedure

1. Identify the legal basis

Trigger	Provision	Character
BAC ≥ 1.6 ‰ (or breath alcohol ≥ 0.8 mg/l)	§ 13 sentence 1 no. 2 lit. c FeV	bound
Repeated drink-driving	§ 13 sentence 1 no. 2 lit. b FeV	bound
Alcohol intoxication below 1.6 ‰ with additional facts	§ 13 sentence 1 no. 2 lit. a FeV	discretion (facts required)
Repeated cannabis use / hard drugs	§ 14 FeV	bound or discretion depending on the variant
Other doubts as to fitness	§ 11(3) FeV	discretion

The scope of the individual triggers has been developed in detail by the administrative courts; BVerwG case law on § 13 sentence 1 no. 2 lit. a FeV requires specific facts, not mere assumptions [unverifiziert – prüfen in juris].

2. Formal lawfulness

Competence (local/substantive) of the driving licence authority.
Hearing under § 28 VwVfG before issuance of the order (at the order stage frequently not mandatory, but at the withdrawal stage as a rule required).
Definiteness under § 37 VwVfG: the question posed in the expert opinion commission must be clearly formulated (which doubts as to fitness are to be clarified?).
Reasoning under § 39 VwVfG.
Deadline for submission of the expert opinion appropriate (as a rule at least 2–3 months, [unverifiziert – konkret zu prüfen]).
Notice under § 11(8) sentence 2 FeV on the consequences of non-production (inference of unfitness). If the notice is missing, the inference of unfitness is later regularly not permissible.

3. Substantive lawfulness

Are the factual requirements of the relevant FeV provision met?
For bound orders: is the authority's finding of facts sustainable (e.g., medical certificate, BAC measurement)?
For discretionary orders: is the exercise of discretion discernible and not flawed (§ 40 VwVfG)?
Proportionality: Is the MPU the mildest suitable means?

4. Consequence of non-production

If the person concerned refuses the MPU or does not submit the assessment within the time limit, may the authority under § 11(8) sentence 1 FeV infer unfitness infer — Requirement: lawful order and proper notice under § 11(8) sentence 2 FeV. The BVerwG requires that the order itself was lawful (BVerwG line, [unverifiziert – prüfen in juris]).

5. Legal protection

Objection (insofar as provided for under state law, § 68 VwGO in conjunction with state law).
Action before the administrative court, § 42 II VwGO. Time limit § 74 VwGO: 1 month from notification.
Urgent application § 80 V VwGO in the case of immediate enforcement of the withdrawal of the driving licence (§ 80 II No. 4 VwGO; statement of reasons requirements § 80 III VwGO).
Appeal § 146 VwGO against urgent decision.

6. Re-granting

After expiry of the criminal disqualification period (§ 69a StGB) or after the withdrawal becomes final, re-granting takes place upon application (§ 20 FeV). The authority may again require an MPU here if the original doubts about fitness continue to exist.

Sources and citation style

Binding: ../../../references/zitierweise.md.

Statutes

§ 11 FeV (fitness; subsection 8 inference of unfitness)
§ 13 FeV (alcohol)
§ 14 FeV (narcotics/medication)
§ 20 FeV (re-granting)
§ 46 FeV (withdrawal)
§ 3 StVG (withdrawal)
§ 28 VwVfG (hearing)
§ 37 VwVfG (definiteness)
§ 39 VwVfG (statement of reasons)
§ 42 VwGO; § 74 VwGO (time limit for action 1 month); § 80 VwGO (immediate enforcement, urgent application)
§ 69 StGB; § 69a StGB (criminal court withdrawal, disqualification period)

Commentaries

Dauer, in: Hentschel/König/Dauer, Straßenverkehrsrecht, 47th ed. 2023, § 13 FeV marginal no. 1 ff., § 11 FeV marginal no. 40 ff. (inference of unfitness)
Jahnke, in: Burmann/Heß/Hühnermann/Jahnke, Straßenverkehrsrecht, 28th ed. 2024, § 11 FeV marginal no. 1 ff.
Schubert/Schneider/Eisenmenger/Stephan, Assessment Guidelines for Fitness to Drive (BAST), as of 2022 (standard work for medical assessment — not a legal source, but an administrative guideline).

Case law (`[unverifiziert – prüfen in juris/Beck-Online]`)

BVerwG, judgment of 17.11.2016 – 3 C 20/15 (requirements for an MPU order after drunk driving)
BVerwG, judgment of 09.06.2005 – 3 C 25/04, BVerwGE 123, 357 (inference of unfitness under § 11 VIII FeV)
OVG NRW, order of 29.07.2009 – 16 B 895/09 (interim legal protection against withdrawal of driving licence)
BVerwG, judgment of 11.04.2019 – 3 C 14/17 (multiple cannabis use, § 14 FeV)

Output format

GUTACHTEN — Rechtmäßigkeit der MPU-Anordnung
Bescheid: <Behörde, Az., Datum>

I.   Sachverhalt
II.  Frage(n)
III. Kurzantwort
     – Anordnung rechtmäßig: [ja / nein / teilweise]
     – Empfohlene Strategie: [Beibringung / Widerspruch / Klage / Eilantrag]

IV.  Rechtliche Bewertung
     1. Ermächtigungsgrundlage
        a) § 13 / § 14 / § 11 III FeV
        b) Tatbestand erfüllt?
     2. Formelle Rechtmäßigkeit
        a) Zuständigkeit
        b) Anhörung § 28 VwVfG
        c) Bestimmtheit § 37 VwVfG (Gutachtenfragestellung)
        d) Frist
        e) Hinweis § 11 VIII S. 2 FeV
     3. Materielle Rechtmäßigkeit
        a) Tatbestandsvoraussetzungen
        b) Ermessen (soweit eröffnet)
        c) Verhältnismäßigkeit
     4. Folgen bei Nichtbeibringung (§ 11 VIII FeV)
     5. Rechtsschutz
        a) Widerspruch / Klage § 74 VwGO
        b) Eilrechtsschutz § 80 V VwGO bei Sofortvollzug

V.   Risiken / offene Punkte
     🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 <Einstufung mit Begründung>

VI.  Entwurf Widerspruchs-/Klagebegründung

VII. Fristenkalender
     – Klagefrist § 74 VwGO: <Datum>
     – Antragsfrist § 80 III VwGO: parallel zur Klage zu stellen

VIII. Quellenverzeichnis

Example (excerpt, expert-opinion style)

III. Short answer. The driving licence authority's MPU order of is justified in principle under § 13 sentence 1 no. 2 lit. c FeV because the established BAC of 1.7 ‰ exceeds the threshold of 1.6 ‰ and § 13 sentence 1 no. 2 lit. c FeV is to that extent a bound administrative decision. Formally, however, there are considerable doubts as to the definiteness of the question within the meaning of § 37 VwVfG.

IV.2.c) Definiteness. The authority limited the question for the expert opinion to "clarification of fitness to drive" without specifying the doubts as to fitness that were to be clarified. According to the BVerwG line (BVerwG, judgment of 17.11.2016 – 3 C 20/15 [unverifiziert – prüfen]), the assessment mandate must identify the specific factual connecting circumstances so that the subject of assessment is clear to the person concerned and the expert. That is lacking.

Risks / typical mistakes

Allowing the submission deadline to lapse and thereby provoking an inference of unfitness under § 11 VIII FeV — even if the order is contestable.
Action period § 74 VwGO (1 month) overlooked — in the case of immediate enforcement, urgent application under § 80 V VwGO in parallel.
Note § 11 VIII sentence 2 FeV not included in the order → inference of unfitness inadmissible.
Confusion of order and withdrawal decision: The MPUorder itself is in principle not independently contestable before the administrative court, but only the withdrawal based on it (settled case law, [unverifiziert – prüfen]).
re-granting proceedings confused with withdrawal proceedings — different standard of review (disappearance of fitness defects must be positively demonstrated).
Assertion "MPU is vexatious" without subsumption related to the statutory elements — not a permissible argument.