Traffic Law

A hearing form, a notice of a traffic fine, or a notice regarding a preliminary investigation usually raises several questions at once. Was the person in question even behind the wheel? Is the speed or following-distance measurement verifiable? Is this still an administrative offense, or has it already become a traffic crime? And what other penalties might follow—a driving ban, points on the license, or restrictions on the driver’s license?

In cases involving alcohol, cannabis, and other intoxicating substances, the determination depends on test results, sample collection, signs of impairment, and the legal classification of the drive. Following an accident, allegations of negligence or suspicion of leaving the scene of an accident may arise. In cases of significant speeding or reckless driving maneuvers, authorities will also investigate whether the allegations go beyond a mere administrative offense.

Defendants and those involved are not required to incriminate themselves: The right to remain silent under Section 136(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) and the principles of criminal procedure applicable under Section 46(1) of the Administrative Offenses Act (OWiG) also apply here. I will examine the specific allegation being made, identify who could be considered the driver, and determine the evidence on which the authorities are relying—measurement records, photos, videos, witness statements, blood tests, accident evidence, and vehicle data.

An Overview of the Topics

Allegations and Evidence — Driver's Identity and Proof of the Offense

A traffic violation can only be attributed to the person who committed it—and in the case of speeding, failing to maintain a safe following distance, or running a red light, simply being the registered owner does not prove who was driving. The authorities may use driver photos, witness statements, and other evidence to identify the driver. For stopping and parking violations, Section 25a of the Road Traffic Act (StVG) contains a special provision regarding costs if the driver cannot be identified before the statute of limitations for prosecution expires or if the investigation would require an unreasonable amount of effort.

In administrative fine proceedings, the person concerned must be given the opportunity to respond to the allegation in accordance with Section 55 of the Administrative Offenses Act (OWiG). This does not imply an obligation to provide details about the matter or to identify the driver—only the personal information required by law is necessary. This applies even if, at first, there is only a hearing form in the mailbox that looks like a form that needs to be filled out.

The evidence of the offense itself depends on the charge. In the case of a measurement, evidence includes the measurement photograph, equipment records, and the documented measurement procedure; following an accident, evidence also includes physical evidence, damage patterns, video recordings, and witness statements. A license plate number, vehicle registration information, or an estimated sequence of events does not replace the attribution of the offense to a specific person.

Speed and Distance — Measurement, Tolerance, and Driving Restrictions

These procedures are based on technical measurements. From a legal standpoint, the procedure used, the specific measurement value, the specified tolerance deduction, and the assignment to the measured vehicle are all relevant; the location, signage, traffic lane, and measurement conditions may also be significant. A general reference to possible equipment errors is of no use here—conversely, however, a measurement must not be accepted without verification simply because it was generated by technical means.

The schedule of fines contains standard rates for typical circumstances and, for the violations covered in Section I, generally assumes that they were committed through negligence. For speeding violations, the tables distinguish between speeds within and outside built-up areas; the amount of the fine and any potential driving suspension depend on the extent of the speeding violation and the type of vehicle. For violations involving failure to maintain a safe following distance, the speed and the remaining distance are weighed against each other.

A driving ban may be imposed pursuant to § 25 StVG and § 4 BKatV for gross or persistent violations of legal obligations. Section 4(2) of the BKatV defines “persistence” as, in the typical case, two legally final speeding violations of at least 26 km/h each, provided the second offense is committed within one year of the first becoming final. Anyone who paid the first fine without question will realize upon receiving the second notice that this decision had consequences.

I review the measurement based on the documentation, not on the result stated in the notice. The question is whether the measured value, the driver’s identification, the presumed form of liability, and the resulting driving ban are legally consistent with one another.

Alcohol and Drugs — Administrative Offense or Criminal Offense

Section 24a(1) of the Road Traffic Act (StVG) prohibits driving a motor vehicle with a breath alcohol concentration of 0.25 mg/l or higher, or a blood alcohol concentration of 0.5 per mille or higher. For cannabis, § 24a(1a) of the StVG sets a threshold of 3.5 ng/ml of tetrahydrocannabinol in blood serum; other intoxicating substances listed in the appendix to § 24a of the StVG are assessed in accordance with paragraph 2. If a medication prescribed for a specific medical condition is taken as directed, the special provision of Section 24a(4) of the Road Traffic Act (StVG) applies.

The THC limit of 3.5 ng/ml has been in effect since August 22, 2024, and was introduced by the Sixth Act Amending the Road Traffic Act. At the same time, special regulations regarding the combined use of substances and a ban on cannabis for new drivers were introduced: Section 24c of the Road Traffic Act (StVG) applies to individuals who are in their probationary period or under the age of 21. For incidents occurring prior to that date, the previous legal provisions apply.

The criminal offense under Section 316 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) must be distinguished from these administrative offenses involving threshold levels. This offense requires that the person was unable to drive the vehicle safely as a result of alcohol or other intoxicating substances—the measured value alone is not sufficient to establish this, and conversely, unfitness to drive can also be determined even if the blood alcohol concentration is below the legal limit. If there is also a specific danger to others, § 315c of the German Criminal Code (StGB) may apply.

I review the test results, the time of the drive, the time and procedure for sample collection, medical findings, and documented signs of impairment or failure to drive. Based on this, a distinction must be made between exceeding the legal limit, criminal unfitness to drive, and the question of fitness to hold a driver’s license—three distinct categories that are often conflated.

Driver's License and Driving Ban — Two Measures, Three Levels

A driving ban and the revocation of a driver’s license are different measures. A driving ban under § 25 StVG prohibits the operation of motor vehicles for a limited period of time and is typically imposed along with a fine for certain administrative offenses; for violations under Section 24a of the Road Traffic Act (StVG), Section 25(1) of the StVG generally also provides for a standard driving ban. The driver’s license remains valid in such cases.

In contrast, criminal revocation under Section 69 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) requires that the offense demonstrate the individual’s unsuitability to operate motor vehicles. The driver’s license expires upon the judgment becoming final, and the court imposes a waiting period for reissuance pursuant to Section 69a of the StGB. Even during the preliminary investigation, a license may be provisionally revoked under Section 111a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) if there are urgent grounds for a subsequent revocation—in practice, this affects those involved long before any judgment is rendered.

Regardless of this, the driver’s license authority assesses a person’s fitness to drive based on its own criteria. This applies to alcohol, cannabis, other narcotics, medications, and health impairments. Since April 1, 2024, Section 13a of the FeV has contained a separate provision for resolving doubts about fitness to drive in cases involving cannabis; further amendments took effect on August 22, 2024. Even those who receive a lenient criminal sentence may still face this procedure.

Accidents and Traffic Offenses — Negligence, Scene of the Accident, Reckless Driving

Following an accident, civil liability is often accompanied by criminal charges: negligent bodily injury under Section 229 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), negligent homicide under Section 222 StGB, endangering road traffic under Section 315c StGB, or leaving the scene of an accident without permission under Section 142 StGB. The decisive factors are the specific traffic violation, whether it could have been avoided, the causal connection, and the perception of the person involved.

Under Section 142 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), simply leaving the vicinity of an incident is not sufficient. It must be determined whether a traffic accident occurred, whether the person was involved in the accident, what findings were made possible, and whether the person left the relevant scene of the accident. Above all, it must be established that the person was aware of the accident and of their own involvement—in cases of minor collision damage, this is precisely the point of contention.

Particularly risky driving behaviors may fall under Section 315d of the German Criminal Code (StGB), which covers organized races and, under certain conditions, so-called “solo races.” Section 315d(1)(3) of the German Criminal Code (StGB) requires, for this to apply, driving at an inappropriate speed, gross traffic violations, recklessness, and the intent to reach the highest possible speed. The Federal Court of Justice has clarified this with regard to cases of fleeing from the police: A high-speed chase does not in and of itself constitute the offense—Decision of March 24, 2021, 4 StR 142/20.

Procedural Rights and Collateral Consequences — Access to Case Files and Registers

Defendants in criminal proceedings and parties involved in administrative fine proceedings are not required to comment on the matter. This also applies to questions whose answers would only serve to establish the driver’s identity, intent, or alcohol or drug use. This is distinct from the personal information required by law. A person’s silence may not be used to draw conclusions that are detrimental to their case.

Access to the case file establishes what evidence is actually on record. In administrative fine proceedings, this is governed by § 49 OWiG; in addition, criminal procedure provisions apply via § 46 OWiG. In cases of technical traffic violations, the evidence includes not only the notice of violation and the measurement photo but also the measurement records, analyses, and other stored data. Which of these are available and accessible depends on the measurement procedure and the contents of the case file—and this is the factor that determines the outcome of an appeal.

The consequences go beyond fines or monetary penalties: driving bans, revocation of a driver’s license, measures imposed by the driver’s license authority, and entries in the Driver Fitness Registry pursuant to Section 28 of the Road Traffic Act (StVG). For vehicles used for business purposes, there may also be implications under labor, commercial, or insurance law. None of these consequences follows automatically—each is based on its own legal basis.

Cross-Border Proceedings — Financial Penalties in the EU

Traffic violations involving foreign elements do not end at the national border. A fine that has become final in another EU member state may be recognized and enforced in Germany under the conditions set forth in Sections 86 et seq. of the International Legal Assistance Act (IRG)—in principle, even if it was imposed by an administrative authority, provided that it was subject to appeal before a court with jurisdiction over criminal matters.

The central German authorizing authority is the Federal Office of Justice. Before enforcement, it reviews whether the foreign request is admissible and eligible for authorization. What it does not do is conduct a complete review of the merits of the foreign traffic case. Which legal remedies were or are still available in the state where the violation occurred is therefore a separate issue—and anyone who raises them too late forfeits them.

Conversely, final German administrative fines and criminal fines may be enforced in another Member State if the requirements are met. In addition to the amount of the fine, certain procedural costs may also be included in the financial penalty.

In a cross-border case, I first determine which country issued the decision, whether it is final, and what proceedings are currently underway. I must then decide whether any objections relate to the original foreign decision or to its recognition and enforcement in Germany.