How long are judicial data retained?

Three different questions about time

Retention is about how long data remains available according to the legal documentation system. Looking back is about which period and data are included in a particular VOG assessment. Limitation has its own function within criminal law. The concepts may be related, but do not automatically give the same answer. Anyone who only remembers for a number of years without knowing which question it belongs to can wrongly reassure themselves or worry for far too long.

Our editorial analysis is to create at least two visible timelines: registration and concrete screening. The limitation question is only added if it is actually legally relevant. This makes it clear that a Certificate of Good Conduct can be possible while data is still being retained, and that the expiration of a usual look-back period is not proof that everything has been erased from the documentation. A personal end date requires the actual registration and applicable rules, not just the name of the offense.

Violations have their own retention periods

Justid describes in principle five years for registered offenses and ten years for certain custodial or community service sentences, with further legal details. The starting point may be related to the final judgment or the full satisfaction of a criminal order. So it is not always a simple count from the day the incident took place. Check which settlement and at which time belong in the registration. (Justid describes in principle five years for registered offenses and ten years for certain custodial or community service sentences)

Not every minor traffic behavior is recorded in the same way. A Mulder fine and a criminal settlement have a different framework. The first question is therefore whether and how a fact is actually included in the judicial documentation. In-depth insight into your data helps with this. A paper fine that you keep at home is not in itself proof of the current content or retention period of the official database. (View your judicial documentation and correct inaccuracies)

The statutory maximum penalty is not your imposed penalty

For crimes, Justid distinguishes between terms of twenty and thirty years. The maximum penalty that the law attaches to the offense is important, not just the sanction imposed in the individual case. A small fine cannot therefore be translated into a short retention period without further assessment. The qualification and applicable legal category must be checked. (Justice includes terms of twenty and thirty years)

There are also special extensions and categories with a longer term. A complete personal calculation must take those rules into account. This article therefore does not provide a calculator that shows a final erasure date based on one word. Ask which provision is applied and which starting point results from the settlement. If a government interpretation simplifies, the legal regulation remains decisive. In case of doubt, a lawyer or the administrator can clarify which data are required for a reliable assessment.

Other matters may influence the end date

Justid explains that in the case of crimes, the retention period can be extended by a later final judgment for another crime. This coincidence is often called cumulation. An original end date from an older case cannot therefore simply be used when another relevant case followed later. The files must be viewed in their mutual timeline. A calculation that isolates one registration may lack legal coherence.

Therefore, make a list of relevant settlements with number, qualification and decision date. Don't include a rumor or unconfirmed expectation as a final statement. If a case is still ongoing, it has its own status. Ask which event legally counts towards the coincidence and how it influences the relevant period. A later case does not mean that every conceivable registration will automatically remain indefinitely. The concrete legal link must be explained instead of just mentioning the word cumulation.

A VOG requires a different timeline

Justis describes the review periods for the VOG, with a usual period and important deviations according to, among other things, age, purpose and offense category. Detention and special situations can also have an influence. These screening periods do not determine how long Justid keeps the data. It is therefore incorrect to conclude from a VOG period of several years that the criminal record will subsequently be removed. (Justis describes the review periods for the VOG)

The VOG assessment also looks at the screening profile and relevant interests. So the function is important. A fact may have a different meaning for one task than for another. A Certificate of Good Conduct in a previous position is not automatically a permanent release for any future purpose. At the same time, an existing registration does not mean that every application will be refused. The two timelines actually help to make this difference understandable without predicting an individual outcome. (VOG assessment)

Prescription is not a general name for forgetting

Limitation of prosecution and retention periods relate to different legal questions. The legal documentation rules can establish a relationship with the lapse of the right to prosecute, but that does not make your own calculation from the incident sufficient. Type of fact, procedural actions and other circumstances may be relevant to the limitation question. A popular statement that everything expires after a certain number of years is therefore unreliable as a general explanation.

First ask why limitation would be important for your specific question. Is it an ongoing criminal case, a registration or a screening? The lawyer can indicate the correct arrangement and request the facts for it. A question about limitation does not have to be central to every VOG discussion. Keeping the goal clear prevents a reader from starting a complicated criminal law discussion when the relevant question is actually the application of a screening profile.

Fictional example: screening possible, registration still available

Suppose that in a fictitious situation an older settlement falls outside a usual review period for a particular application. The person concludes that the judicial data must therefore already have been deleted. That does not follow from the screening period. A retention period can be considerably longer and special screening rules must also be checked. The example shows the relationship between the systems, not a promise that this request will be granted.

The first page contains the registration, settlement and legal storage category. The second sheet contains application purpose, profile and applicable review rule. The lawyer or competent assessor can then explain which data are relevant in the specific screening. The advantage of this separation is that the person does not unnecessarily submit a removal request based on a term that does not apply. At the same time, an actual error in the registration can still be specifically investigated.

An unfavorable registration is not automatically incorrect

Justid explains that a general GDPR claim for oblivion is not the same as the regulation for judicial documentation. The Judicial and Criminal Procedure Data Act contains its own system. That does not mean that factual errors should remain. A correction request may be necessary if personal data or settlement has been processed incorrectly. But the wish that a correct piece of information disappears because it causes a nuisance is a different legal question. (Justid explains that a general GDPR claim for oblivion is not the same as the judicial documentation scheme · Judicial and Criminal Procedure Data Act)

Therefore, describe whether you dispute an error, a term or the meaning in another procedure. Please include the relevant official source. An acquittal can be registered without the overview claiming a conviction. The in-depth dismissal or acquittal and registration works this out. A careful request uses the right grounds and prevents the administrator from having to guess a general objection to the criminal case from an undirected request to erase everything. (Dismissal or acquittal and your judicial details)

What data do you need to collect?

Collect official decisions and the current overview of your own judicial data. Note the fact, qualification, settlement and relevant dates for each case. An old letter with a provisional position is not necessarily the final settlement. Also save subsequent changes. If different documents conflict, first ask for an explanation before choosing the most favorable date as final. An unknown fact is a question for the right authority.

Do not share the overview unnecessarily with third parties. An employer who requires a Certificate of Good Conduct does not automatically have to receive every historical registration data. Other questions and sources may also apply to foreign procedures; this article does not provide a general admission guarantee. Keep the purpose of data provision limited and, if necessary, have it assessed which information is actually needed. Your own administration should help ask the right questions, not increase the dissemination of criminal data.

Two timelines next to each other

The worksheet below is an editorial tool and not a personal wipe date calculator. The rules and current data must be checked. Keep an expected outcome separate from a confirmed decision. Especially when deadlines are complicated, an overview of sources is more valuable than a number without an explanation of the scheme applied to it.

• Registration: which case and settlement are actually listed?
• Retention framework: violation, crime or special category, with applicable legal source.
• Starting point: which final statement or other relevant event determines the count?
• Concurrence: which other settlements can have an influence according to the law?
• Screening: which purpose, profile and which review rule belong to the specific VOG application?
• Difference: is the question about correction, retention or relevance to another decision?
• Check: which date and conclusion have been confirmed by the competent source and which remain an open question?