# E_1003 — Check whether the disconnection order was successful (Based on electricity EBD: E_0472_Check whether the disconnection order was successful)
Check whether the disconnection order was successful (Based on electricity EBD: E_0472_Check whether the disconnection order was successful)
| Attribute | Value |
|---|---|
| Designation | Check whether the disconnection order was successful (Based on electricity EBD: E_0472_Check whether the disconnection order was successful) |
| Market role | NB |
| Regulatory determination / chapter | Disconnection processes gas |
| Section | 17.2.4: AD: Interruption of grid connection use (disconnect) on the instruction of LF |
| Check identifiers | Response: [21039](/en/schnittstellen/202610/pruefi/IFTSTA/PI_21039) |
| EBD version | 4.3 |
| As at | — |
## Decision tree
\nDecision tree E_1003: Prüfen, ob Sperrauftrag erfolgreich (Basiert auf Strom EBD: E_0472_Prüfen, ob Sperrauftrag erfolgreich)\n\n\n\nE_1003\nPrüfen, ob Sperrauftrag\nerfolgreich (Basiert auf Strom\nEBD: E_0472_Prüfen, ob\nSperrauftrag erfolgreich)\nChecking role: NB\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\nyes\n\nno\n\n\n10\nWar eine Sperrung aus rechtlichen\nGründen nicht möglich (z. B., wenn\neine Einstweilige Verfügung\nvorlag)?\n\n\nA01\nCluster: failed\nMarktlokation wurde nicht gesperrt,\nda ein rechtlicher Grund vor Ort\nerkannt wurde.\n\n\n20\nWurde der Anschlussnutzer\nangetroffen? Hinweis: Es gab\nkeine Anzeichen dafür, dass der\nAnschlussnutzer anwesend war.\n\n\nA08\nCluster: failed\nDer Anschlussnutzer wurde nicht\nangetroffen. Es gab keine Anzeichen\ndafür, dass dieser anwesend war.\n\n\n30\nWar eine Sperrung aus dem Grund\n„aktive Zutrittsverweigerung“\nnicht möglich? Hinweis: Unter\n„aktive Zutrittsverweigerung“ ist\nzu verstehen, dass der\nAnschlussnutzer angetroffen\nwurde und dieser den Zugang z. B.\ndurch Drohungen, physische\nAngriffe, versperren des Zugangs\nzur Trennstelle unterbunden hat.\n\n\nA02\nCluster: failed\nMarktlokation wurde nicht gesperrt,\nda eine aktive Zutrittsverweigerung\nvorlag.\n\n\n40\nWar eine Sperrung aus dem Grund\n„passive Zutrittsverweigerung“\nnicht möglich? Hinweis: Unter\n„passiver Zutrittsverweigerung“\nist zu verstehen, dass eine\nAnwesenheit des\nAnschlussnutzers festgestellt\nwurde, dieser jedoch seine\nAnwesenheit verleugnet. (z.B.\nAnschlussnutzer wurden in der\nWohnung gesichtet, öffnet aber\ndie Tür nicht).\n\n\nA03\nCluster: failed\nMarktlokation wurde nicht gesperrt,\nda eine passive Zutrittsverweigerung\nvorlag.\n\n\n50\nWar eine Sperrung wegen eines\nVerhinderungsgrundes nicht\nmöglich?\n\n\nA04\nCluster: failed\nMarktlokation wurde nicht gesperrt,\nda ein Verhinderungsgrund vorlag.\nHinweis: Im Freitext muss der\nVerhinderungsgrund mitgeteilt\nwerden.\n\n\n60\nWar eine Sperrung aus einem\ntatsächlichen Grund nicht\nmöglich? Unter tatsächliche\nGründe fallen z. B.: Marktlokation\nvor Ort nicht identifizierbar\nZugang zur Marktlokation nicht\nmöglich Kundenwechsel an der\nMarktlokation festgestellt\nLieferantenwechsel an der\nMarktlokation festgestellt und\nZuordnungsbeginn des LFN liegt\nvor dem frühestmöglichen\nSperrtermin des LFA.\n\n\nA05\nCluster: failed\nMarktlokation wurde nicht gesperrt,\nda ein tatsächlicher Grund vorlag.\nHinweis: Im Freitext muss der\ntatsächliche Grund mitgeteilt werden.\n\n\n70\nWar eine Sperrung aus einem\ntechnischen Grund nicht möglich?\n\n\nA06\nCluster: failed\nMarktlokation wurde nicht gesperrt,\nda ein technischer Grund vorlag.\nHinweis: Im Freitext muss der\ntechnische Grund mitgeteilt werden.\n\n\nA07\nCluster: successful\nMarktlokation wurde gesperrt.\n"} kapitel={"Sperrprozesse Gas · 17.2.4: AD: Unterbrechung der Anschlussnutzung (Sperren) auf Anweisung des LF"} name={"Prüfen, ob Sperrauftrag erfolgreich (Basiert auf Strom EBD: E_0472_Prüfen, ob Sperrauftrag erfolgreich)"}>
| Step | Check | Result | Code | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Was a disconnection not possible for legal reasons (e. g., if an injunction was in place)? | yes | A01 | Cluster: failed Market location was not disconnected because a legal reason was identified on site. |
| — | — | no | → Step 20 | — |
| 20 | Was the connection user encountered? Note: There were no indications that the connection user was present. | no | A08 | Cluster: failed The connection user was not encountered. There was no indication that they were present. |
| — | — | yes | → Step 30 | — |
| 30 | Was a disconnection not possible for the reason "active refusal of access"? Note: "Active refusal of access" means that the connection user was encountered and prevented access, e. g. by threats, physical attacks or by blocking access to the isolating point. | yes | A02 | Cluster: failed Market location was not disconnected because access was actively refused. |
| — | — | no | → Step 40 | — |
| 40 | Was a disconnection not possible for the reason "passive refusal of access"? Note: "Passive refusal of access" means that the presence of the connection user was established but the connection user denies being present. (e.g. the connection user was seen in the flat but does not open the door). | yes | A03 | Cluster: failed Market location was not disconnected because access was passively refused. |
| — | — | no | → Step 50 | — |
| 50 | Was a disconnection not possible due to an impediment? | yes | A04 | Cluster: failed Market location was not disconnected because a preventing reason existed. Note: The preventing reason must be stated in the free text. |
| — | — | no | → Step 60 | — |
| 60 | Was a disconnection not possible for a factual reason? Factual reasons include, for example: market location cannot be identified on site, access to the market location not possible, customer change established at the market location, supplier switch established at the market location and allocation start of the LFN lies before the earliest possible disconnection date of the LFA. | yes | A05 | Cluster: failed Market location was not disconnected because an actual reason existed. Note: The actual reason must be stated in the free text. |
| — | — | no | → Step 70 | — |
| 70 | Was a disconnection not possible for a technical reason? | yes | A06 | Cluster: failed Market location was not disconnected because a technical reason existed. Note: The technical reason must be stated in the free text. |
| — | — | no | A07 | Cluster: successful Market location has been disconnected. |
## Result codes
| Result code | Cluster | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| `A01` | failed | The market location was not disconnected because a legal reason was identified on site. |
| `A08` | failed | The connection user was not encountered. There were no signs that they were present. |
| `A02` | failed | The market location was not disconnected because an active refusal of access existed. |
| `A03` | failed | The market location was not disconnected because a passive refusal of access existed. |
| `A04` | failed | The market location was not disconnected because an impediment existed. Note: the impediment must be communicated in the free text. |
| `A05` | failed | The market location was not disconnected because an actual reason existed. Note: the actual reason must be communicated in the free text. |
| `A06` | failed | The market location was not disconnected because a technical reason existed. Note: the technical reason must be communicated in the free text. |
| `A07` | successful | The market location was disconnected. |
*Role of the numbers: »response« are the check identifiers that list this tree in the ebd_code column of the check identifier table (knowledge-collection · FV 202610); »checked« is the difference set to it from the return path of the process steps.*
:::note{title="Not checked against a process"}
**No** consistency check was carried out for this decision tree — no generated BPMN found. Whether the MACO APP implements this tree completely is therefore not evidenced here.
:::