In short
MPU hypotheses (MPU-Hypothesen) are case groups from the assessment criteria that assessors use for their evaluation: A1 to A4 for alcohol, D1 to D3 for drugs, a separate system for cannabis and V1 to V3 for traffic offences and criminal offences. The hypothesis determines what you have to prove, for example 12 months of abstinence for A1 or A2. You are assigned on the basis of the case file, not according to your own wishes.
What are the MPU hypotheses in the first place?
The MPU hypotheses are the classification system of the assessment criteria – forming judgements in driving aptitude assessment (Beurteilungskriterien – Urteilsbildung in der Fahreignungsbegutachtung; DGVP/DGVM, published on behalf of the BASt). The current version is the 5th edition 2026, which was adapted to the Cannabis Act (Cannabisgesetz). These criteria are the professional standard according to which assessors work at the assessment centres (Begutachtungsstellen für Fahreignung) for the MPU (medical-psychological assessment, Medizinisch-Psychologische Untersuchung).
Each hypothesis describes a typical problem situation and the conditions under which the expert report (Gutachten) can conclude "fit". For you, this means: if you know your hypothesis, you know which evidence and what kind of change is expected. You can find an overview of terms in the MPU glossary.
How is your case assigned to a hypothesis?
Your case is assigned on the basis of the case file: blood alcohol or THC values, the type and number of incidents, repetitions and signs of habituation or dependence. Your own assessment of yourself does not decide this.
One example is high tolerance (Giftfestigkeit). A high blood alcohol level without signs of impairment is considered a sign of strong habituation to alcohol. The assessor then concludes that there has been regular, increasing consumption over a longer period, and hypotheses A1 or A2 become more likely than the story of a one-off slip. That is why file inspection (Akteneinsicht) is the first step of any classification.
What do the alcohol hypotheses A1 to A4 mean?
The alcohol hypotheses range from dependence (A1) to a lack of ability to separate drinking and driving in milder cases (A4). The more entrenched the problem, the stricter the requirements.
| Hypothesis | Problem situation | What usually has to be proven |
|---|---|---|
| A1 | Dependence | Withdrawal therapy or similar and permanent abstinence, documented for 12 months; no controlled drinking |
| A2 | Advanced misuse | As a rule, consistent abstinence, 12 months; controlled drinking only as a narrow exception |
| A3 | Risk of alcohol problems | Changed drinking behaviour after developing problem awareness: controlled drinking possible or about 6 months of abstinence |
| A4 | Ability to separate | Stable separation of drinking and driving, in milder or one-off constellations |
For A2, controlled drinking has been possible as a narrow exception since the 4th edition (2022, criterion A 2.7 N). The conditions are: no sign of dependence, a stable concept developed in therapy and evidence over at least 6, preferably 12 months. Any doubt about your ability to stay in control leads to rejection. More on this in the guide Controlled drinking or abstinence and on the page MPU because of alcohol.
What do the drug hypotheses D1 to D3 mean?
The drug hypotheses distinguish between dependence, misuse and risk. Unlike with alcohol, there is no variant with controlled consumption here; abstinence is always required.
- D1 – Dependence: everyday life revolves around the substance. Therapy and stable abstinence over 12 months are required.
- D2 – Misuse: advanced or polyvalent consumption, or hard drugs. Stable abstinence over 12 months is required.
- D3 – Risk: no signs of an advanced problem. After a comprehensible process of gaining insight, permanent abstinence is required; 6 months of evidence are often enough.
For cannabis, a separate system has applied since the Cannabis Act, based on § 13a FeV (Driving Licence Regulation, Fahrerlaubnis-Verordnung). Occasional consumption no longer automatically calls your fitness to drive into question. In the case of dependence, fitness to drive is only restored after 1 year of proven abstinence. Details are on the page MPU because of drugs.
What do the traffic hypotheses V1 to V3 mean?
The traffic hypotheses concern points, criminal offences and aggression. This is not about substances, but about attitudes and patterns of behaviour.
- V1: generalised disorder of emotional or social development, serious or repeated offences. A therapeutically supported process of change is required that has been tested over a longer period.
- V2: entrenched problematic patterns of behaviour combined with a reduced ability to adapt. Awareness of your own share in the problem and a documented change are required.
- V3: the lowest level of conspicuousness, socially integrated, but with a tendency to rationalise and to take a "calculated risk". A change in attitude and insight into risk are required.
The principle of behaviour transfer (Verhaltenstransfer) applies to all V hypotheses: offences outside road traffic are also taken into account, because problematic patterns can carry over to behaviour behind the wheel.
What do all the hypotheses have in common?
As a rule, all hypotheses require three pillars of evidence, which must be credible and free of contradictions. The hypothesis only determines how strict each pillar is.
- Insight into the problem and understanding of the causes: you can explain why it happened without trivialising it.
- Change in behaviour: concrete, comprehensible changes, such as abstinence, a new social environment or strategies for risky situations.
- Stability and motive: the change has been tested over a sufficient period and holds up under stress, supported by an inner motive.
A hypothesis is not a judgement about you as a person. It describes which path to a positive expert report is realistic.
Why is the right classification so important for your timetable?
The right classification is important because the hypothesis determines whether you have to prove 6 or 12 months of abstinence. This evidence period has to be completed before the MPU and is usually the bottleneck of the entire plan. If you assess yourself too mildly and start too late or with a programme that is too short, you may lose months.
Some rules of thumb from the criteria help with orientation:
- Repeat cases and signs of dependence point to abstinence rather than controlled drinking.
- With very high blood alcohol levels, as a rule of thumb above about 2.0 ‰, controlled drinking hardly has any prospect of success.
- The chosen strategy must match the case file, otherwise it will seem implausible in the interview.
If in doubt, the stricter option is the safer plan.
What you can do now
- Inspect your file and note the values, incidents and the authority's question.
- Have your hypothesis assessed by a professional, ideally through qualified traffic psychology counselling (Beratung).
- Start an abstinence programme immediately if your hypothesis requires 6 or 12 months of evidence.
- Work on all three pillars instead of learning answers by heart.
- Look for support: find suitable preparation.
Frequently asked questions
Can I choose my hypothesis myself?
No, the classification follows from the case file, that is, from values, incidents and history. If you claim a milder hypothesis than the case file supports, you will come across as implausible. An honest professional assessment before you start your preparation makes sense.
Is the hypothesis stated in the MPU order?
In the order, the authority formulates a specific question, not a hypothesis. The assessor assigns the case to a hypothesis on the basis of the assessment criteria. However, the likely hypothesis can be estimated well in advance from the question and the case file.
Do the hypotheses still apply after cannabis legalisation?
Yes, the 5th edition of the assessment criteria from 2026 was adapted to the Cannabis Act. There is a separate system for cannabis, based on § 13a FeV. In the case of dependence, one year of proven abstinence is still required.
Is controlled drinking enough for A3?
Yes, with A3, controlled drinking is possible in principle if there is no finding of dependence. The condition is a plausible concept that remains stable over time, with fixed rules and 0.0 per mille at the wheel, documented for example by a drinking log.
