Asking for a dismissal code to be reviewed or corrected

The code tells why no further action is taken

The Public Prosecution Service distinguishes between technical and policy dismissals. A technical dismissal has to do with the possibility of prosecution or a feasible conviction. With a policy dismissal, prosecution is waived on grounds of public interest, while prosecution may be technically possible. These terms describe the decision of the Public Prosecution Service. They are not an abbreviated judicial acquittal, nor should they be read as a conviction. The motivation should explain why this case in particular is being terminated on the stated grounds. (OM distinguishes between technical and policy dismissals)

Anyone who reads the letter as just a result with the word ready may miss the meaning of the reason. This can cause confusion, especially with later questions about judicial documentation. Therefore, check which fact description, date, person and ground are stated in the letter. Also note if more than one fact or code is mentioned. A favorable decision on one part does not automatically say anything about another part of the same case. Start with the decision as it is actually recorded, not with the summary given over the phone.

Insufficient evidence and wrongly suspected are not synonyms

dismissal code 01 refers to facts and circumstances that unequivocally indicate innocence: the person concerned has been wrongly classified as a suspect. Dismissal code 02 concerns insufficient legal and convincing evidence. The difference is essential. The fact that the prosecution does not have enough evidence does not mean, logically or legally, that innocence has been established in the same way. A request to replace code 02 with 01 must therefore contain more than the same denial that was already included in the investigation.

An established alibi, mistaken identity or specific exclusion may be relevant for the first category. An unresolved contradiction, on the other hand, can show why evidence falls short without fully resolving the event. So describe which new or incorrectly valued information makes the difference. A lawyer can help test whether the argument really fits the desired ground. It is about the correctness of the motivation, not about a ranking on which each former suspect can choose the most reassuring code.

First create a letter-file registration matrix

Place three columns next to each other. The first states what the dismissal letter says, the second which file document relates to it and the third what is actually stated in the judicial documentation or still needs to be verified. Highlight any difference. Perhaps the correct dismissal is stated in the Public Prosecution Service decision, but a date has been incorrectly processed. Perhaps the registration fully complies with the decision, but you think the substantive ground for dismissal is wrong. These two situations require different explanations.

Add a specific question for each difference. Why was insufficient evidence selected while mistaken identity has been established? Why is a policy reason stated while a decisive element according to the own motivation is missing? Why is the later decision missing from the registration? Such questions focus treatment on a controllable point. Leave uncertain data recognizable: for example, write that you have not yet viewed the current registration. A self-made assumption about a criminal record can otherwise function as the starting point of the entire request.

No prosecution does not automatically mean no registration

The Judicial Information Service explains that suspicions, dismissals and certain judicial outcomes are also registered for crimes, with mentioned exceptions such as codes 01 and 09. The presence of a registration is therefore not the same as a conviction. However, the precise settlement can be important. First request access if it is unclear what has been recorded. An employer who vaguely refers to a criminal record does not necessarily provide a reliable description of its own criminal record.

Avoid the expectation that every change to a code automatically deletes all data in every system. Judicial documentation, police data and a separate VOG decision have different frameworks. A correction must be processed along the relevant route and checked if necessary. The Judicial and Criminal Procedure Data Act regulates, among other things, the rights of access and correction. If you have a specific registration issue, ask which source registration is being adjusted, who is doing this and what confirmation you can expect.

A different ground requires a different motivation

An argument can be strong in itself but not fit the required code. Anyone who states that a behavior was justified, for example because of self-defense, asks a different legal question than someone who says that he or she was not at the scene in the first place. The code must be consistent with the substantive grounds for which no prosecution will take place. It is therefore risky to only copy the text of a sample letter with code 01 when your own complaint actually concerns a justification.

In 2025, the National Ombudsman described a case in which the Public Prosecution Service adjusted the grounds for dismissal after intervention after self-defense had been reassessed. This is a concrete example of the importance of listening and motivating; it is not a court judgment that upholds every comparable complaint. The editorial lesson is that the facts and the legal qualification must meet. Ask why a specific argument does or does not change the existing basis, rather than simply asking for an administrative outcome that is more favorable to you. (National Ombudsman described in 2025)

The official route runs via the chief officer

The instruction from the Public Prosecution Service mentions a complaint about the dismissal or coding for the former suspect to the chief public prosecutor of the relevant public prosecutor's office, on the basis of Chapter 9 of the General Administrative Law Act. If the treatment is not satisfactory, the National Ombudsman can come into the picture. That is a different route than a normal appeal against a court decision. A victim seeking prosecution may have a different procedure; those procedures should not be used interchangeably.

Make it clear in the complaint what the decision is, what you are complaining about and what answer you require. Include a limited, readable selection of pieces with page references. For example, ask for a reassessment of the code based on a stated alibi and for an explanation when enforcing the ground. A general complaint about the entire criminal law makes the relevant difference more difficult to find. Save the sent text and confirmation of receipt and, if another procedure is ongoing, have it checked whether individual deadlines apply.

A registration error does not always require a change to the dismissal decision

If the name, date or outcome has been entered incorrectly, a correction request to Justid may be relevant. The information about access and correction requests describes these rights and the treatment. The most useful evidence is often the decision or other official document with which the registration does not correspond. However, a request for correction is not a simple replacement for the substantive complaint against the ground for dismissal. If the registration correctly reflects the Public Prosecution Service decision, the substantive question lies elsewhere.

Therefore, write explicitly whether you dispute incorrect processing or the underlying decision. Have an advisor connect both questions when necessary. Otherwise you can go from counter to counter with a request that is neither sufficiently precise. Also ask about the consequences of a reassessment for the existing registration. An amended decision that is not recognized anywhere may not solve the practical problem. Monitoring the implementation is therefore part of the completion, without assuming that every government service manages the same data.

Fictional example: a wrong person and an unclear letter

In a fictional example, Eva is suspected of theft at a station. Later, controlled images and identification data show that another person was involved. The dismissal letter only mentions insufficient evidence. Eva wants to know why it has not been recorded that she has been wrongly identified as a suspect. Her request can specifically refer to the specific identification investigation. That is substantively different from just saying that she has always denied and therefore deserves the most favorable code.

A second fictional variant shows the difference: the perpetrator is not recognizable in the images and statements contradict each other. Then insufficient evidence can be an understandable other ground, even if Eva continues to emphasize her innocence. The difference between the variants lies in the established research outcome. Neither example predicts what should happen in a real case. They show why a letter-file comparison is more useful than an undifferentiated requirement that every unprosecuted suspect receives code 01.

Make a defined question verifiable

A good file card also helps when the case has been emotionally difficult. First note the exact ground mentioned and then a maximum of a few differences that go to the heart of the matter. Describe the importance of a correct decision, but do not make that importance evidence for the desired basis. The fear of problems at work is understandable and can clarify urgency; it does not in itself demonstrate which facts have been established in the criminal investigation.

• Decision: complete letter of dismissal, date, public prosecutor's office number and fact involved.
• Justification: exact code, description and any additional grounds.
• File: relevant passage, source, date and page number.
• Difference: which fact or legal principle do you think does not fit?
• Registration: has access been obtained and does it deviate from the decision?
• Request: substantive reassessment, explanation or correction of processing.
• Continued: Acknowledgment of receipt, response and separate ongoing procedures.

A careful answer can also be a reasoned rejection

Not every complaint leads to adjustment. The ombudsman also discussed a case about the interpretation of code 02, where the motivation was inadequate in parts without establishing any other desired grounds. That distinction is important for expectations. You can legitimately ask for a better answer while the final code remains the same. Therefore, assess whether the response addresses the core of your argument and does not merely repeat a previous boilerplate sentence. (ombudsman also discussed a case regarding the explanation of code 02)

Our conclusion: ask for a correct and understandable basis, with verifiable processing, instead of a cosmetically cleaner file. Use the main dismissal guide for the broader decision and the explanation about a VOG with a criminal record for that individual assessment. When a changed code is confirmed, check what was actually changed. A proper conclusion consists of an understandable decision and clarity about the relevant registration, not just the announcement that the complaint has been handled. (main guide dismissal · VOG with a criminal record)