The Court Decision: 47.8 Nanograms and License Loss
On July 23, 2026, Berlin’s Administrative Court (VG Berlin) rejected an emergency appeal against the revocation of a driver’s license. Decision VG 11 L 401/26 from the 11th Chamber answers a question that has concerned many consumers since cannabis legalization: legal consumption does not protect against doubts regarding driving fitness.
📑 Inhaltsverzeichnis
The case is straightforward and therefore instructive. During a traffic stop in February 2025, the driver tested positive for 47.8 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood serum. This is roughly fourteen times the legal threshold of 3.5 nanograms.
From Traffic Stop to License Revocation
Following the control, the licensing authority ordered a medical-psychological examination to clarify the doubts about driving fitness. The driver failed to submit the evaluation. The authority subsequently revoked his license with immediate effect.
This sequence is the critical point. The license was not lost because of driving under cannabis influence per se, but because of the failure to provide the required examination. Under § 11 Section 8 of the Driving License Regulation, the authority may conclude unfitness if a lawfully demanded expert opinion is not submitted. Anyone who ignores such an order effectively loses the opportunity to prove their fitness at all.
Why the Court Found the Order Lawful
Unlike alcohol, cannabis has no fixed threshold that automatically triggers an examination requirement. The regulation specifies 1.6 per mille for alcohol. For cannabis, § 13a of the Driving License Regulation instead uses the concept of abusive consumption.
Under the version effective since April 1, 2024, consumption is considered abusive if consumption and driving cannot be adequately separated. The court found this standard met. The measured value significantly exceeds levels that traffic medicine and traffic psychology experts consider safe. Such a high value indicates high-frequency or chronic consumption, meaning the separation between consumption and driving is no longer guaranteed.
The Prescription Came Too Late
Another aspect of the proceedings is noteworthy. The driver cited a medical cannabis prescription, but it dated from 2026. The court rejected this argument because a later prescription cannot retroactively justify consumption from 2025.
This clarification is important for patients. The so-called medication privilege only applies if the therapy was already medically prescribed and properly taken at the time of driving. A retrospective prescription does not cure a past fact. Patients who drive should understand the fundamentals we summarized in our overview of Cannabis and Road Traffic 2026.
What This Decision Means for Consumers
This decision is an emergency ruling, not a final judgment. An appeal to the Higher Administrative Court Berlin-Brandenburg is possible. Nevertheless, it demonstrates the trajectory emerging in administrative law since the Cannabis Consumption Act.
Driving license law is hazard prevention law and follows its own logic. Whether consumption is legally permitted is irrelevant here. What matters is solely whether someone can safely operate a vehicle. This same distinction has applied to alcohol for decades without surprising anyone. The cannabis debate long lacked this objectivity, and experts declared the handling of cannabis unacceptable years ago, while opinions on cannabis legalization remained divided.
Practically, this means two things. First, a very high THC value in a traffic stop is not just a fine issue but a driving license issue. Second, ordering an examination is not an end in itself. Those who ignore it will certainly lose their license. Those who comply have at least a chance. Our guide to MPU for Cannabis describes what to expect.
Frequently Asked Questions
At What THC Level Does an MPU Become Likely?
The Driving License Regulation does not specify a fixed value for cannabis, unlike the 1.6 per mille limit for alcohol. What matters is whether the authority can assume abusive consumption. In the Berlin case, 47.8 nanograms per milliliter sufficed because this value indicates regular use.
What’s the Difference Between a Fine and License Revocation?
The effectiveness threshold of 3.5 nanograms concerns administrative offense law and results in fines, driving bans, and points. License revocation, by contrast, follows driving license law and requires doubts about fitness. Both proceedings run independently.
Does a Cannabis Prescription Protect Against License Loss?
Only under narrow conditions. The therapy must have been prescribed before driving, and the medication must be taken as directed. A retrospectively issued prescription does not justify earlier consumption, as Berlin’s Administrative Court explicitly stated.
What Happens If I Don’t Submit the Required Evaluation?
Under § 11 Section 8 of the Driving License Regulation, the authority may then conclude unfitness. However, the examination order must have been lawful. The legality of the order can be reviewed in proceedings against the revocation.
Is This Decision Final?
No, it is an emergency ruling. An appeal can be filed with the Higher Administrative Court Berlin-Brandenburg. Final clarification occurs in the main proceedings.
Sollte eine MPU schon ab 3,5 ng/ml THC angeordnet werden dürfen?
Sources: Administrative Court Berlin, decision of July 23, 2026, case number VG 11 L 401/26; Legal Tribune Online; urteile.news.
Branchen-Update
News, Analysen und Reportagen — mehrmals im Monat direkt in dein Postfach.
Folge uns
