Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
3 B 37/19, 3 B 37/19 (3 C 1/21) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2021:150221B3B37.19.0 Generato dall'IA

Scope of supervisory power to demand medical documentation justifying controlled substance prescriptions under the Narcotics Act

Numero d'incarto 3 B 37/19, 3 B 37/19 (3 C 1/21)
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) overturned the Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal's decision not to admit the revision and ordered that the revision be admitted, while deferring cost decisions to the main proceedings and setting the dispute value at €23,000. This dispute concerns whether monitoring officers, tasked with overseeing the administration of narcotics, have the authority to demand that a physician submit prescription copies and underlying medical documentation, such as patient records and findings, that justify the prescription of controlled substances. The BVerwG determined that the case possesses fundamental significance under § 132(2) no. 1 of the Code of Administrative Court Proceedings, as the revision will allow the court to clarify the specific prerequisites under which such submissions can be mandated pursuant to §§ 22(1) no. 1 and 24 of the Narcotics Act (BtMG).

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; Scope of supervisory power to demand medical documentation justifying controlled substance prescriptions under the Narcotics Act: This dispute concerns whether monitoring officers, tasked with overseeing the administration of narcotics, have the authority to demand that a physician submit prescription copies and underlying medical documentation, such as patient records and findings, that justify the prescription of controlled substances. The BVerwG determined that the case possesses fundamental significance under § 132(2) no. 1 of the Code of Administrative Court Proceedings, as the revision will allow the court to clarify the specific prerequisites under which such submissions can be mandated pursuant to §§ 22(1) no. 1 and 24 of the Narcotics Act (BtMG).

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
legge sugli stupefacenti poteri e compiti di vigilanza prescrizione autorità amministrativa accertamenti medici procedura di revisione

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
The legal basis cited for the main ground of the decision, establishing that the case has fundamental significance and justifying the admission of the revision.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
The legal basis cited for the provisional determination of the dispute value in the revision proceedings.
Generato dall'IA
3 C 1/21
Narcotic supervision authority’s power to compel access to patient medical records under the Narcotic Drugs Act
1 StR 613/15
Justification of unlawful acquisition of narcotics for pain relief: Exclusion of state of necessity due to availability of § 3 Abs. 2 BtMG license procedure
2 StR 255/13
Mandatory expert report and access to medical records when considering detoxification facility placement
3 C 3/18
Administrative-law standing to challenge prescription status of a registered medicinal product: admissibility of declaratory action against norm-giver and limits of discretion under § 48 AMG
XII ZB 470/14
Validity of forced medical treatment order: requirement for physician responsibility clause in the decree formula under § 323 Abs. 2 FamFG

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

The legal basis cited for the main ground of the decision, establishing that the case has fundamental significance and justifying the admission of the revision.

§ 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

The legal basis cited for the provisional determination of the dispute value in the revision proceedings.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Revisionszulassung; Vorlage von BtM-Rezepten und weiteren Patientenunterlagen

[TENOR]

Die Entscheidung des Bayerischen Verwaltungsgerichtshofs über die Nichtzulassung der Revision in seinem Urteil vom 4. Juli 2019 wird aufgehoben.

Die Revision wird zugelassen.

Die Entscheidung über die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens folgt der Kostenentscheidung in der Hauptsache.

Der Wert des Streitgegenstandes wird für das Revisionsverfahren vorläufig auf 23 000 € festgesetzt.

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde des Klägers hat Erfolg. Der Rechtssache kommt die geltend gemachte grundsätzliche Bedeutung (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO) zu. Das Revisionsverfahren wird dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht voraussichtlich Gelegenheit zur Klärung der Frage geben, ob und gegebenenfalls unter welchen Voraussetzungen die mit der Überwachung beauftragten Personen gemäß § 22 Abs. 1 Nr. 1, § 24 BtMG verlangen können, dass ein Arzt die Durchschläge der für bestimmte Patienten ausgestellten Betäubungsmittelrezepte und die Unterlagen vorlegt, die die Verschreibung des Betäubungsmittels begründen können (z.B. Patientendokumentation, Arztbriefe, Befunde).

Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.