Immediate driving licence decision: Vorstellung and deadline

Under section 57(1) AVG, an authority may order an urgent measure by decision without a prior investigation where there is imminent danger. Whether a driving licence letter was issued under this rule cannot be inferred from urgency alone. Its designation, operative part, cited legal basis and legal remedy notice are decisive.

Withdrawal or restriction of a driving entitlement is governed substantively by section 24 FSG and the other provisions of the Driving Licence Act. Section 57 AVG governs the special procedure. These levels must remain separate: a timely Vorstellung does not by itself decide whether the substantive conditions for withdrawal exist.

Under section 57(2) AVG, a Vorstellung may be lodged against a decision issued under section 57(1) AVG within two weeks. It must be filed with the authority that issued the immediate decision. The date printed on the first page is not enough to calculate the period. The actual service process, any proof of service and the complete legal remedy notice are required.

Keep the envelope, collection notice, electronic proof of service and any power of attorney. Copy the file number and authority exactly into the submission. Then retain the electronic transmission record, receipt stamp or postal receipt together with the final version of the Vorstellung.

Section 57(2) AVG gives a Vorstellung suspensive effect only where it challenges an order to pay money. Withdrawal or restriction of a driving entitlement is not such an order. Filing within the deadline therefore does not by itself mean that the person may drive again.

Review the operative part, any statement on enforceability and any provisional seizure together. Section 39 FSG regulates provisional seizure as a separate step. The article on surrendering the driving licence explains which records concerning enforceability and the beginning of the withdrawal period belong together.

Under section 57(3) AVG, the authority must initiate the investigation within two weeks after receiving the Vorstellung. If it does not, the challenged immediate decision ceases to have effect by operation of law. At the party’s request, the authority must confirm this consequence in writing.

Silence alone should not be treated as conclusive proof that the decision has ceased to have effect. The relevant questions are when the Vorstellung actually reached the authority and whether the authority took an outwardly recognisable investigative step within the statutory period. The authority record, later requests and service documents may establish this sequence.

• the complete immediate decision with every page and enclosure
• envelope, collection notice or electronic proof of service
• certificate concerning any provisional seizure of the licence
• legal remedy notice and legal provisions cited in the operative part
• final version of the Vorstellung with all enclosures
• transmission record, receipt stamp or postal receipt
• every later request, summons or notice from the authority
• record of an outwardly recognisable investigative step
• separate list of running periods and service events

Order the records by date and file number. Work on copies and keep original files unchanged. This preserves when the remedy was received and what procedural act followed.

The Vorstellung challenges an immediate decision under section 57 AVG. An appeal against a decision follows a different remedy route. File inspection serves to review the authority’s material and investigative steps. None of these procedural acts automatically replaces another.

The article on an appeal against a driving licence decision explains the separate role of service and the legal remedy notice. The guide to file inspection in driving licence proceedings covers party status, scope, copies and exceptions. Record which route the specific document actually names.