Appearance
Research Report 07: Bußgeldverfahren — Procedural Steps, Cost Risks, and Strategic Assessment
Overview
Detailed research on the formal Bußgeldverfahren [regulatory offence proceeding] that may follow if the EUR 35 Verwarnung under § 1(2) StVO is refused. Covers the complete procedural chain from Bußgeldbescheid to Hauptverhandlung, cost-benefit analysis, Reformatio in peius risk, discontinuation prospects, Flensburg points, and timelines.
Produced for the Stiskala v. Neumann case (Claim No. 26-11-634/533153-Z). Supplements Research Report 06 (Verwarnung refusal mechanics).
1. Bußgeldbescheid Procedure After Verwarnung Refusal
Status: VERIFIED — based on §§ 53–66 OWiG statutory text [1] [2] [3]
Step-by-Step Sequence
| Step | Description | Legal Basis | Timeframe |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Verwarnung refused (not paid) | § 56(2) OWiG | Already occurred |
| 2 | Authority decides whether to pursue | § 47(1) OWiG (Opportunitätsprinzip) | Days to weeks |
| 3 | Anhörung [formal hearing]: Authority sends Anhörungsbogen to Betroffener | § 55 OWiG; due process requirement | ~2–6 weeks after refusal |
| 4 | Betroffener may respond or remain silent | Recht auf Gehör; nemo tenetur principle | Typically 2 weeks to respond |
| 5 | Bußgeldbescheid issued | §§ 65–66 OWiG | After Anhörung period expires |
| 6 | Bußgeldbescheid served [zugestellt] | § 51 OWiG (formal service rules) | By post with proof of service |
| 7 | 2-week Einspruch window opens | § 67(1) OWiG | Runs from date of Zustellung |
Formal Requirements for a Bußgeldbescheid (§ 66 OWiG)
Status: VERIFIED [3]
The Bußgeldbescheid must contain (§ 66(1) OWiG):
- Personal details of the Betroffener and any Nebenbeteiligte (Nr. 1)
- Name and address of the Verteidiger [defence counsel], if any (Nr. 2)
- Description of the offence: the specific conduct alleged, time and place of commission, the statutory elements of the Ordnungswidrigkeit, and the applicable Bußgeldvorschriften — i.e., § 1(2) StVO → § 49(1) Nr. 1 StVO → § 24(1), (3) Nr. 5 StVG (Nr. 3)
- Evidence [Beweismittel] — e.g., police officers' observations, Unfallbericht (Nr. 4)
- The fine amount and any Nebenfolgen [ancillary consequences] (Nr. 5)
The Bußgeldbescheid must also contain (§ 66(2) OWiG):
- A warning that the Bescheid becomes legally binding and enforceable if no Einspruch is filed (Nr. 1a)
- A warning that an Einspruch can lead to a decision WORSE for the Betroffener (Nr. 1b) — this is the Reformatio in peius notice
- An instruction to pay within 2 weeks of Rechtskraft or face enforcement (Nr. 2)
- A warning about possible Erzwingungshaft [coercive detention] (Nr. 3)
The Bußgeldbescheid does not need to be fully reasoned beyond the offence description and evidence (§ 66(3) OWiG).
Costs Added by the Bußgeldbescheid
Status: VERIFIED [4]
Unlike a Verwarnung (which is cost-free per § 56(3) sentence 2 OWiG), a Bußgeldbescheid carries administrative costs:
| Cost Component | Amount | Legal Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Administrative fee [Verwaltungsgebühr] | 5% of the Bußgeld, minimum EUR 25 | § 107(1) OWiG |
| Service costs [Auslagen/Zustellung] | ~EUR 3.50 | § 107(3) OWiG + GebOSt |
| Total administrative surcharge | ~EUR 28.50 |
For a EUR 35 Bußgeld, the Betroffener would face: EUR 35 (fine) + EUR 25 (minimum fee) + ~EUR 3.50 (service) = ~EUR 63.50 total if the Bußgeldbescheid becomes rechtskräftig.
2. Einspruch Procedure (§ 67 OWiG)
Status: VERIFIED — statutory text confirmed [5] [6]
Filing the Einspruch
| Requirement | Detail | Legal Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Deadline | 2 weeks from Zustellung of the Bußgeldbescheid | § 67(1) sentence 1 OWiG |
| Form | Written [schriftlich] or oral to record [zur Niederschrift] at the issuing authority | § 67(1) sentence 1 OWiG |
| Recipient | The Verwaltungsbehörde that issued the Bußgeldbescheid (i.e., PP Krefeld Bußgeldstelle) | § 67(1) sentence 1 OWiG |
| Scope | Can be limited to specific complaints [bestimmte Beschwerdepunkte] | § 67(2) OWiG |
| Withdrawal | Can be withdrawn at any time, even during Hauptverhandlung | § 67(1) sentence 2 → § 302 StPO |
Important: The Einspruch does NOT need to state reasons. A simple statement "Ich lege Einspruch ein" is sufficient.
Procedural Stages After Einspruch
| Stage | What Happens | Legal Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Zwischenverfahren | The authority reviews the Einspruch. It may: (a) withdraw the Bußgeldbescheid entirely, (b) partially amend it, or (c) forward the file to the Staatsanwaltschaft | § 69 OWiG |
| StA review | The Staatsanwaltschaft checks legal requirements and sends the file to the Amtsgericht | § 69(3)–(4) OWiG |
| Gerichtliches Verfahren | The Amtsgericht (Einzelrichter) handles the case. Two paths: Hauptverhandlung or Beschlussverfahren | §§ 71–72 OWiG |
The Two Judicial Paths
Path A: Beschlussverfahren (§ 72 OWiG) [7]
If the court considers a hearing unnecessary, it may decide by written order [Beschluss]:
- Both the Betroffener and the Staatsanwaltschaft must be given 2 weeks' notice and opportunity to object to this procedure
- Either party can demand a Hauptverhandlung by objecting [Widerspruch]
- If both consent (or if the court acquits), the court decides by Beschluss
- KEY: § 72(3) sentence 2 — Verschlechterungsverbot [no-worsening rule]: In the Beschlussverfahren, the court may NOT deviate from the Bußgeldbescheid to the Betroffener's disadvantage
Path B: Hauptverhandlung (§ 71 OWiG) [6]
The oral hearing before the Amtsgericht:
- Procedure follows StPO rules applicable after Einspruch against a Strafbefehl (§ 71(1) OWiG)
- The Betroffener is not required to attend if the fine is ≤ EUR 1,000 and no Fahrverbot is imposed, provided the court has granted leave of absence (§ 73(2)–(3) OWiG)
- Simplified evidence rules apply (§ 77 OWiG)
- The judge may read out written witness statements instead of hearing witnesses live (§ 77a OWiG)
- NO Verschlechterungsverbot — the court CAN impose a HIGHER fine (see Section 4 below)
3. Cost Risk Analysis
Status: VERIFIED (court fees) / LIKELY (attorney fee estimates) [8] [9] [10]
Scenario: Einspruch Filed and LOST at Amtsgericht
| Cost Category | Amount | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Bußgeld | EUR 35 (or potentially higher, see Section 4) | As set by court |
| Administrative fee (Bußgeldbescheid) | EUR 25 (minimum) | § 107(1) OWiG |
| Service costs | ~EUR 3.50 | § 107(3) OWiG |
| Court fee (KV Nr. 4110 GKG) | EUR 40 (minimum; 10% of Bußgeld, floor EUR 40) | GKG Anlage 1, Nr. 4110 [8] |
| Subtotal (without attorney) | ~EUR 103.50 | |
| Own attorney fees (RVG, Regelgebühr) | ~EUR 300–400 (see breakdown below) | RVG VV 5100–5108 [9] |
| Total if lost with attorney | ~EUR 400–500 |
Attorney Fee Breakdown (RVG Betragsrahmengebühren, Bußgeld < EUR 60)
Status: VERIFIED — RVG fee schedule confirmed [9] [10]
| Fee Component | VV Nr. | Regelgebühr | Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grundgebühr [basic fee] | 5100 | EUR 110.00 | EUR 33–187 |
| Verfahrensgebühr Vorverfahren [pre-trial] | 5101 | EUR 71.50 | EUR 22–121 |
| Verfahrensgebühr Gericht [court proceedings] | 5107 | EUR 71.50 | EUR 22–121 |
| Terminsgebühr [hearing attendance] | 5108 | EUR 143.00 | EUR 22–264 |
| Post/telecom flat rate | 7002 | EUR 20.00 | max EUR 20 |
| Subtotal (net) | ~EUR 416.00 | ||
| + 19% VAT | ~EUR 79.04 | ||
| Total attorney (gross, Regelgebühr) | ~EUR 495 |
Note: These are Wahlanwalt [private counsel] fees at Regelgebühr. An attorney may charge less for a straightforward case (Unterdurchschnittlichkeit), potentially ~EUR 300 gross for a minimal-effort case.
Scenario: Einspruch Filed and WON (Freispruch or Einstellung)
| Cost Category | Amount | Who Pays |
|---|---|---|
| Court fees | EUR 0 | State bears costs |
| Own attorney fees | Reimbursed at Pflichtverteidiger rates | § 467 StPO via § 46(1) OWiG |
| Difference between Wahlanwalt and Pflichtverteidiger fees | Betroffener bears the difference | Not recoverable |
Important: Even if the Einspruch succeeds, the Betroffener only recovers attorney fees at Pflichtverteidiger rates (lower than Wahlanwalt fees). The difference is not recoverable from the state. For the fee category under EUR 60, the Pflichtverteidiger rates are approximately 20–25% lower than Wahlanwalt Regelgebühr.
Cost-Benefit Assessment
Status: VERIFIED (arithmetic) / Assessment is editorial
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Amount at stake (Bußgeld) | EUR 35 |
| Maximum downside if lost without attorney | ~EUR 103.50 |
| Maximum downside if lost with attorney | ~EUR 400–500 |
| Upside if won | EUR 35 saved; no official record; strengthened civil claim position |
For the OWi proceeding viewed in isolation, the cost-benefit is highly unfavorable. The potential costs of losing with an attorney (EUR 400–500) exceed the fine by more than 10x.
However, in the context of the civil liability claim, the calculus changes entirely:
- If paying the Verwarnung causes HUK-COBURG to attribute 20–33% contributory fault on a claim worth EUR 5,000–15,000, the resulting loss is EUR 1,000–5,000 — far exceeding the OWi proceeding costs.
- A successful challenge (or even discontinuation) of the OWi charge eliminates the insurer's basis for attributing fault.
- Therefore, when evaluated together with the civil claim, contesting the Bußgeldbescheid can be cost-effective.
4. Can the Fine Amount INCREASE? (Reformatio in Peius)
Status: VERIFIED — critical distinction between two procedural paths [3] [6] [7]
The Bußgeldbescheid Stage
When the authority converts a refused EUR 35 Verwarnung into a Bußgeldbescheid, the fine amount is not fixed at EUR 35. The authority sets the Bußgeld independently based on:
- The Bußgeldkatalog (BKat) standard rate for the offence
- § 17(3) OWiG (significance of the offence, degree of fault, economic circumstances)
For a § 1(2) StVO violation in an accident context, the BKat range is typically EUR 20–55. The authority is likely to set the fine at or near EUR 35 (the same as the Verwarnung), but it is not obligated to do so.
The Beschlussverfahren (§ 72 OWiG)
Verschlechterungsverbot applies. § 72(3) sentence 2 OWiG:
"Das Gericht darf von der im Bußgeldbescheid getroffenen Entscheidung nicht zum Nachteil des Betroffenen abweichen."
Translation: "The court may not deviate from the decision in the Bußgeldbescheid to the disadvantage of the Betroffener."
If the court decides by Beschluss (without a hearing), the fine cannot be increased above the amount in the Bußgeldbescheid. This is a hard rule with no exceptions.
The Hauptverhandlung (§ 71 OWiG)
NO Verschlechterungsverbot. There is no prohibition against Reformatio in peius in the Hauptverhandlung.
This is confirmed by:
- § 66(2) Nr. 1b OWiG — the Bußgeldbescheid itself must contain the warning: "bei einem Einspruch auch eine für den Betroffenen nachteiligere Entscheidung getroffen werden kann" [an Einspruch can also lead to a decision worse for the Betroffener] [3]
- § 71(1) OWiG — the Hauptverhandlung follows StPO rules for Strafbefehl proceedings, where there is no Verschlechterungsverbot either [6]
- Settled case law — the court is free to re-evaluate the offence on its own merits and impose a different (including higher) fine
Practical Risk Assessment for This Case
| Factor | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Theoretical maximum | EUR 1,000 (§ 17(1) OWiG general maximum) |
| BKat range for § 1(2) StVO | EUR 20–55 |
| Likely actual range | EUR 35–55 |
| Risk of dramatic increase | Very low — for a general duty-of-care violation without aggravating factors, a judge would have no basis to exceed the BKat range significantly |
| Mitigating factor | The Betroffener can withdraw the Einspruch at any time during the Hauptverhandlung if the judge signals a harsher sanction (§ 67(1) sentence 2 OWiG → § 302 StPO) |
Bottom line: While the theoretical risk of Reformatio in peius exists, the practical risk for a EUR 35 § 1(2) StVO matter is negligible. The Betroffener retains the safety valve of Einspruch withdrawal.
Important strategic note: In the Beschlussverfahren, the fine cannot increase at all. If the Betroffener is offered the Beschlussverfahren option and does not object (Widerspruch), this eliminates the Reformatio in peius risk entirely.
5. Einstellung (Discontinuation) Under § 47 OWiG
Status: VERIFIED (statutory framework) / LIKELY (assessment of probability) [11] [12] [13]
§ 47 OWiG — Two Levels of Discretion
Level 1: Behördliche Einstellung [authority discontinuation] — § 47(1) OWiG
"Die Verfolgung von Ordnungswidrigkeiten liegt im pflichtgemäßen Ermessen der Verfolgungsbehörde. Solange das Verfahren bei ihr anhängig ist, kann sie es einstellen."
The authority (PP Krefeld Bußgeldstelle) can discontinue the proceeding at any time while it is still pending before the authority. This includes:
- Before issuing a Bußgeldbescheid (after receiving the refused Verwarnung)
- During the Zwischenverfahren (after Einspruch is filed, before forwarding to StA)
Grounds include: triviality, disproportionate effort, evidentiary weakness, limited public interest.
Level 2: Gerichtliche Einstellung [court discontinuation] — § 47(2) OWiG
"Ist das Verfahren bei Gericht anhängig und hält dieses eine Ahndung nicht für geboten, so kann es das Verfahren mit Zustimmung der Staatsanwaltschaft in jeder Lage einstellen."
Critical provision for this case: § 47(2) sentence 2 OWiG:
"Die Zustimmung ist nicht erforderlich, wenn durch den Bußgeldbescheid eine Geldbuße bis zu einhundert Euro verhängt worden ist und die Staatsanwaltschaft erklärt hat, sie nehme an der Hauptverhandlung nicht teil."
Translation: StA consent is not required for discontinuation when:
- The Bußgeld is ≤ EUR 100, AND
- The StA has declared it will not participate in the Hauptverhandlung
Both conditions will almost certainly be met here:
- The Bußgeld will be well under EUR 100 (likely EUR 35)
- For minor traffic OWi matters under EUR 100, the StA routinely declines participation
This means the Amtsgericht judge can unilaterally discontinue the proceeding without needing anyone's consent. The Beschluss is not subject to appeal (§ 47(2) sentence 3 OWiG).
Probability Assessment: How Likely Is Einstellung?
| Factor | Direction | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Amount: EUR 35 — near the bottom of the Verwarnungsgeld range | Favours Einstellung | High |
| Nature of charge: § 1(2) StVO is vague, general; hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt | Favours Einstellung | High |
| Accident context: Other party (Neumann) clearly at fault (failure to look right) | Favours Einstellung | Moderate |
| Evidentiary burden: Authority would need to prove what Stiskalova could/should have done differently | Favours Einstellung | Moderate |
| Standardised processing: Bußgeldstelle may process automatically without individual assessment | Favours prosecution | Moderate |
| Complete file: Police already documented incident | Favours prosecution | Low |
Assessment: The probability of Einstellung is moderate to high (estimated 40–60%) at some stage in the proceedings:
- At the Bußgeldstelle stage: The authority may decide not to issue a Bußgeldbescheid at all after reviewing the refused Verwarnung. Probability: ~20–30%.
- At the Zwischenverfahren stage: If Einspruch is filed and the Bußgeldstelle reviews, it may withdraw the Bescheid. Probability: ~10–20%.
- At the Amtsgericht stage: The judge can unilaterally discontinue under § 47(2) sentence 2 for a sub-EUR 100 matter. Probability: ~20–40%, especially if the defence submission raises credible factual doubts.
Cumulative probability of Einstellung at some stage: estimated 40–60%.
Confidence: LIKELY — no statistics exist for Einstellung rates in specific OWi categories. The assessment is based on the legal framework, the characteristics of the offence, and practical experience described in legal commentary.
6. Flensburg Points (§ 4 StVG, Fahreignungs-Bewertungssystem)
Status: VERIFIED — no points for this violation [14] [15] [16]
The Threshold Rule
Points in the Fahreignungsregister [driver fitness register] in Flensburg are only entered for offences that meet the criteria in § 4(2) StVG in conjunction with the Fahrerlaubnis-Verordnung (FeV) Anlage 13 [15].
The practical threshold for a 1-point entry (the lowest category) requires:
- The offence must be classified as "verkehrssicherheitsbeeinträchtigend" [impairing traffic safety] in Anlage 13 FeV
- For most traffic Ordnungswidrigkeiten, this corresponds to a Regelbuße of at least EUR 60 in the Bußgeldkatalog
Application to This Case
| Factor | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Offence | § 1(2) StVO — general duty of care |
| Fine amount | EUR 35 (Verwarnung) / likely EUR 35 in Bußgeldbescheid |
| Threshold | EUR 60 minimum for point entry |
| Listed in Anlage 13 FeV? | A general § 1(2) StVO violation at this fine level is NOT listed as a point-carrying offence |
| Result | NO points in Flensburg |
Even if the Bußgeldbescheid were to set a slightly higher fine (e.g., EUR 50), this would still be below the EUR 60 threshold and would not result in any Flensburg points.
Points would only be relevant if:
- The offence were reclassified as a specific, more serious violation (e.g., Rotlichtverstoß = EUR 90+ = 1 point), or
- The fine were set at EUR 60 or above
Neither scenario is realistic for a § 1(2) StVO charge in this case.
Summary
| Question | Answer | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Will a EUR 35 § 1(2) StVO violation result in Flensburg points? | No | VERIFIED |
| Could points arise if the Bußgeld increases? | Only if ≥ EUR 60, which is extremely unlikely for this charge | VERIFIED |
| Is there any Fahrverbot risk? | No — Fahrverbote are only for specific BKat offences, not general § 1(2) StVO | VERIFIED |
7. Timeline: From Bußgeldbescheid to Hauptverhandlung
Status: VERIFIED (legal framework) / LIKELY (practical duration estimates) [17] [18] [19]
Verfolgungsverjährung (Statute of Limitations)
Status: VERIFIED [17]
The special limitation rule in § 26(3) StVG applies to all § 24(1) StVG offences (including § 1(2) StVO violations):
| Phase | Period | Application |
|---|---|---|
| Before Bußgeldbescheid | 3 months from the offence | Offence: 04.02.2026 → expires ~04.05.2026 |
| After Bußgeldbescheid | 6 months from issuance | If issued 01.04.2026 → expires 01.10.2026 |
Interruption: The on-scene Verwarnung interaction on 04.02.2026 likely interrupted the period under § 33(1) Nr. 1 OWiG (first hearing of Betroffener), resetting the 3-month clock. Any Anhörungsbogen sent later would constitute a further interruption.
Absolute maximum: Regardless of interruptions, prosecution is barred after 2 years from the act (§ 33(3) sentence 2 OWiG), i.e., by 04.02.2028.
Expected Timeline
Based on NRW Amtsgericht statistics [19] and typical administrative processing times:
| Event | Estimated Date | Elapsed |
|---|---|---|
| Accident / Verwarnung issued | 04.02.2026 | Day 0 |
| Verwarnung payment deadline expires (~1 week) | ~11.02.2026 | 1 week |
| Bußgeldstelle receives refused Verwarnung | ~Feb/Mar 2026 | 2–6 weeks |
| Anhörungsbogen sent (if pursuing) | ~Mar/Apr 2026 | 6–10 weeks |
| Anhörung response period (~2 weeks) | ~Apr 2026 | 8–12 weeks |
| Bußgeldbescheid issued | ~Apr/May 2026 | ~3 months |
| Einspruch filed (2-week deadline) | ~May 2026 | ~3.5 months |
| Zwischenverfahren (Bußgeldstelle review) | ~May/Jun 2026 | ~4 months |
| File forwarded to Staatsanwaltschaft | ~Jun/Jul 2026 | ~5 months |
| File forwarded to Amtsgericht | ~Jul/Aug 2026 | ~6 months |
| Hauptverhandlung scheduled | ~Sep–Dec 2026 | ~7–10 months |
NRW Court Processing Times
The NRW Ministry of Justice publishes annual statistics on OWi case durations at Amtsgerichte [19]. For minor traffic Ordnungswidrigkeiten:
- Median duration (from Eingang at court to Erledigung): approximately 2–4 months
- Including the pre-court phases: total from offence to court decision is typically 6–12 months
- Many minor cases (especially sub-EUR 100) are resolved without Hauptverhandlung through Einstellung or Beschlussverfahren, reducing the timeline
For this case: Given the minor nature (EUR 35, § 1(2) StVO), and that a Hauptverhandlung may not even be necessary, a realistic total timeline is:
| Outcome | Expected Duration |
|---|---|
| Einstellung by Bußgeldstelle (no Bußgeldbescheid) | 2–4 months |
| Einstellung at court / Beschlussverfahren | 6–8 months |
| Hauptverhandlung at Amtsgericht | 8–12 months |
8. Integrated Risk Assessment
Risk Matrix
| Risk | Probability | Financial Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bußgeldstelle drops matter entirely | ~20–30% | EUR 0 (best outcome) | Wait and see |
| Bußgeldbescheid issued, fine ~EUR 35 + fees | ~50–60% | EUR 63.50 (fine + admin) | File Einspruch |
| Einspruch succeeds (Einstellung or Freispruch) | ~40–60% (if Einspruch filed) | EUR 0 + partial attorney fee recovery | |
| Einspruch fails, fine confirmed | ~30–40% (if Einspruch filed) | EUR 103.50 (without attorney) | Accept or consider no attorney |
| Fine increased at Hauptverhandlung | <5% | EUR 55 max realistically | Withdraw Einspruch if signalled |
| Flensburg points | 0% | N/A — below threshold | Not a risk |
Strategic Recommendations
Do not pay the Verwarnung. (Confirmed from Report 06; unchanged.)
If a Bußgeldbescheid is issued: File Einspruch within 2 weeks. The Einspruch itself costs nothing and opens multiple paths to dismissal.
Attorney decision: For the OWi proceeding alone, hiring an attorney is not cost-effective (EUR 300–500 fees vs. EUR 35 fine). However, if an attorney is already retained for the civil claim (which is recommended), the attorney should handle the OWi proceeding as well — the marginal cost is lower, and a successful OWi defence directly strengthens the civil claim.
Prefer Beschlussverfahren over Hauptverhandlung. If the court offers Beschlussverfahren (§ 72 OWiG), do not object — this eliminates the Reformatio in peius risk entirely. In the Beschlussverfahren, the court can only acquit, discontinue, or confirm the fine at the same level.
Watch the limitation period. The 3-month Verfolgungsverjährung (§ 26(3) StVG) means the authority must act by approximately early May 2026. If no Anhörungsbogen or Bußgeldbescheid arrives by then, the matter may have lapsed.
Withdraw Einspruch as safety valve. If the Hauptverhandlung takes an unfavourable turn (e.g., judge signals higher fine or the evidence is clearly against the Betroffener), the Einspruch can be withdrawn on the spot. The original Bußgeldbescheid then becomes rechtskräftig.
Confidence Ratings Summary
| Finding | Rating | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Bußgeldbescheid formal requirements (§ 66 OWiG) | VERIFIED | Statutory text from dejure.org |
| Administrative costs ~EUR 28.50 (§ 107 OWiG) | VERIFIED | Statutory text: 5% of fine, min EUR 25 + service |
| Einspruch deadline 2 weeks (§ 67 OWiG) | VERIFIED | Statutory text |
| No Reformatio in peius in Beschlussverfahren (§ 72(3) s.2) | VERIFIED | Statutory text |
| Reformatio in peius IS possible in Hauptverhandlung | VERIFIED | § 66(2) Nr. 1b OWiG + § 71(1) OWiG + settled law |
| Practical risk of fine increase for EUR 35 § 1(2) StVO: very low | LIKELY | Based on BKat ranges and proportionality |
| Court fee minimum EUR 40 (GKG KV 4110) | VERIFIED | GKG Anlage 1, Nr. 4110 |
| Attorney fees at Regelgebühr ~EUR 400–500 (RVG VV 5100ff) | VERIFIED | RVG fee schedule |
| § 47(2) s.2: court can discontinue without StA consent for ≤ EUR 100 | VERIFIED | Statutory text |
| Einstellung probability 40–60% | LIKELY | Assessment based on legal framework; no statistics available |
| No Flensburg points for EUR 35 § 1(2) StVO | VERIFIED | § 4(2) StVG + FeV Anlage 13 threshold (EUR 60) |
| 3-month Verfolgungsverjährung (§ 26(3) StVG) | VERIFIED | Statutory text |
| Total timeline to Hauptverhandlung: 8–12 months | LIKELY | Based on NRW statistics; varies by court |
| Absolute Verjährung: 2 years from act | VERIFIED | § 33(3) sentence 2 OWiG |
Sources
- § 55 OWiG — Anhörung des Betroffenen – dejure.org
- § 65 OWiG — Allgemeines (Bußgeldbescheid) – dejure.org
- § 66 OWiG — Inhalt des Bußgeldbescheides – dejure.org
- § 107 OWiG — Gebühren und Auslagen – buzer.de
- § 67 OWiG — Form und Frist (Einspruch) – dejure.org
- § 71 OWiG — Hauptverhandlung – dejure.org
- § 72 OWiG — Entscheidung durch Beschluß – dejure.org
- GKG Anlage 1, Teil 4 — Gebühren in Bußgeldsachen (KV 4110) – sadaba.de
- RVG Gebühren in Bußgeldsachen (VV Teil 5, Abschnitt 1) – haufe.de
- RVG Rechner Bußgeldsachen – rechtsanwaltsgebuehren.de
- § 47 OWiG — Verfolgung von Ordnungswidrigkeiten – dejure.org
- Einstellung nach § 47 OWiG — Opportunitätsgrundsatz (Haufe) – haufe.de
- § 47 OWiG: Verfolgung und Einstellung – bussgeldkatalog.org
- § 4 StVG — Fahreignungs-Bewertungssystem – dejure.org
- FeV Anlage 13 — Punktbewertung – gesetze-im-internet.de
- Punktekatalog (ADAC) – adac.de
- § 26 StVG — Verjährung (Verkehrs-OWi) – gesetze-im-internet.de
- § 33 OWiG — Unterbrechung der Verfolgungsverjährung – gesetze-im-internet.de
- NRW Justiz — Dauer der Verfahren (Amtsgerichte) – justiz.nrw.de