revocation of the medical licence

Revocation or withdrawal?

The Federal Medical Act distinguishes two routes. Withdrawal under § 5(1) concerns cases where something was already wrong at the time of issue — for example if the training certificate required under § 3(1)(4) was not present at all, or if a recognised equivalence of training standard was in fact not established. Revocation under § 5(2), on the other hand, concerns subsequent developments. If reliability and professional integrity subsequently cease to exist, revocation is mandatory — the authority has no discretion. If medical fitness to practise subsequently lapses, revocation is possible but not mandatory.

What triggers a revocation?

Typical grounds are final criminal convictions with a professional dimension — for example systematic billing fraud, offences against the sexual self-determination of patients, or serious breaches of narcotics law. Case law requires particularly serious misconduct; not every conviction suffices, and courts have upheld licences even after fraud convictions where there was no profit motive or where early restitution was made. Revocation is often preceded by suspension of the licence while criminal proceedings are pending. Later reinstatement of the medical licence is legally possible, but as a rule requires a period of several years of demonstrably unblemished conduct. The Act specifies no fixed period; this depends on the assessment of the individual case.

What does this mean for doctors with a foreign qualification?

For graduates from Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, or Hungary the same standards apply as for graduates of German faculties. A European dimension is added: under Directive 2005/36/EC, member states notify each other of professional bans and restrictions. A revocation in Germany therefore has consequences for practice in another EU state. Conversely, the German licensing authority learns of measures taken in the country of training and takes them into account in the procedure.

Common misconceptions

Revocation is not a criminal ancillary consequence but an independent administrative decision. It can occur even after a lenient criminal judgment. Conversely, it is not automatic. The administrative courts are available against the decision; the prospects depend on specialist legal advice.