An employer asks about your criminal history

First ask which document or answer is actually requested

A recruiter may say criminal record when what is meant is VOG. Another employer requests an explanation of a specific conviction or wants a copy of a file. These requests differ greatly in content and consequences. Therefore, ask for a specific description, preferably in writing. For which function, which risk and which document is the information required? An unclear request does not become more precise because the applicant sends a complete personal history as a precaution. This can distribute data that is not necessary for the purpose.

Also note who is asking the question: future employer, employment agency, client or external screening company. This makes it clear where information ends up and who should provide an answer about the process. The designation of our policy is not in itself a complete legal basis for every conceivable fact. At the same time, a specific question does not necessarily have to be unlawful. The first actionable step is to establish the scope so that appropriate assessment can be made. Keep an application period and any start date in the same administration.

Criminal law personal data has special protection

The Dutch Data Protection Authority explains that criminal data may not generally be processed in job applications, unless an appropriate exception and necessity exist. Often a VOG can be the appropriate route. The GDPR contains a separate framework in Article 10 for data on criminal convictions and offences. In addition to a general processing basis, the specific conditions are relevant. An employer cannot therefore treat this information as an ordinary extra note on a CV.

Discuss purpose, scope and recipients of the request. A question about a possible security risk does not automatically provide access to all pages of a case file, which may also contain data from third parties. Voluntary provision also does not automatically remove all legal conditions. The relationship of dependence during a job application deserves attention when appealing for consent. If in doubt, have a privacy expert or employment lawyer look at the specific situation. Do not make a general conclusion that a signature permits any use or that any screening request is prohibited.

An explanation provides a goal-oriented outcome

Justis assesses in a VOG request whether relevant data constitutes an objection for the specific purpose. The official FAQ explains that someone with a criminal record can also receive a VOG. An explanation is therefore not the same as universal proof that nothing ever happened. Conversely, delaying an application does not automatically prove that someone has relevant antecedents. Administrative questions and additional assessment may take time. Ask what statement and time of issue are required for the position.

The employer must ensure that the job profile and the application are well suited to the work. The screening profiles of Justis are an official entry point. Communicate an incorrect job description in a timely manner, without making the goal more favorable than it really is. A VOG for a different role might answer a different question. An applicant does not automatically have to send an intention or draft response to Justis to everyone in the recruitment process. Therefore, keep the VOG process and the employer's information request clearly separated.

A request message and a denial mean different things

Anyone who receives an intention to refuse may have to prepare their own response within the VOG process. That document is not the same as a final decision. Check the deadline and discuss which documents are relevant for that assessment. Do not let a recruiter determine the legal content of a view because the start date is approaching. Your own assessment may require information that is very personal and not necessary for the employer. A limited explanation of application status may be more appropriate in practice, depending on the concrete agreements.

Any employment offer may contain conditions regarding the timely submission of a VOG. The meaning of such a clause and the consequences of delay or refusal are questions of employment law. Have them assessed separately. A substantive chance of VOG -issue is no guarantee that every contractual issue has been resolved. Conversely, a conflict about the start date does not mean that the VOG decision itself has been finalized. By following both processes separately, appropriate help can be obtained before deadlines or important opportunities expire unused.

Your own overview is not intended as a general application document

A request to check your own data has a different purpose than screening by an employer. The rules surrounding judicial data determine who can receive data and under what conditions. The mere fact that you can view or request certain information does not automatically give an employer the same right. Therefore, have it explicitly assessed why your own overview or file copy is requested and whether a more targeted official statement is the appropriate route. Also, do not send login details to let someone else take a look for themselves. (rules regarding judicial data)

A case file may contain addresses, statements, medical information or personal data of others. Removing some names does not automatically make such a package suitable for a personnel file. Don't share anything on a large scale until it is clear what is necessary and permitted. Ask where information is stored and who has access to it. An email to a general recruitment address can be spread further than expected. A specific question to the responsible contact person usually yields more than a complete transmission with the hope that the relevant part will be selected yourself.

Discussing necessity does not require an incorrect explanation

An applicant can ask why a question is being asked and what information is required. That is different from advising you to give a false answer. Whether you must report certain information on your own initiative and what consequences a response may have depends on the employment law situation and specific facts. This guide does not offer a general license or universal reporting obligation. In the case of a sensitive position, an explicit contract clause or an ongoing conflict, seek specialist help before signing a far-reaching statement.

A calm response might be that you want to understand what risk needs to be assessed for the position and whether a VOG is required for this. This makes the question more concrete without speculating about the content. If a relevant explanation appears to be appropriate, limit it to what is actually necessary and make uncertainty recognisable. An accusation is not the same as a conviction. Do not dismiss an ongoing matter as completed or allow an old decision to be turned into a current ineligibility without context. Care helps both parties get a more reliable picture.

A broad email question for a limited administrative function

Fictional example: Elise applies for an administrative position and receives a form asking her to explain all contacts with the police and the judiciary. She is considering sending an old court file to be open. First she asks which activities are being screened and which document the organization requires. It turns out that the recruiter uses a standard form, while the responsible department means a VOG for a specific profile. This does not automatically solve every question, but makes the scope open for discussion.

Elise also has a specific contract condition assessed because it contains a start date and document requirements. She monitors the VOG application and does not send private data of others from the old file. This fictional example does not predict that every employer will adjust his demand. It shows why clarification before provision is useful. Even if an employer has an additional legitimate question, this can then be specifically assessed. A general choice between telling everything and answering nothing does not do sufficient justice to the difference between purpose, document and legal obligation.

A conversation card for a targeted information request

Write down the original question literally and list the position and activities next to it. Take this with you to a meeting with the employer or advisor. The card is not an objection form and does not replace a legal assessment; she collects the facts necessary for this. Also record whether an answer is requested orally or in writing and who decides on this. A timely question about a form can prevent a later discussion about a broad signed statement. Have the card updated with a new role or modified request.

• Objective: which specific functional risk must be assessed?
• Document: VOG, special screening, personal statement or other document?
• Basis: what legal regulations and necessity are mentioned for the request?
• Scope: which limited data is relevant and which information is excluded?
• Recipients: employer, client, screener and persons with access.
• Retention: registration, retention period, security and deletion after use.
• Result: starting condition, term and reason for requesting employment law advice.

For each response, indicate who it came from and when it was received. Save the version of the form you are responding to. A later change may otherwise obscure which statement was actually requested. Agree who will answer substantive privacy questions and who will be in charge of employment conditions. They do not have to be the same people. The map helps a specialist quickly see whether the problem is mainly about unnecessary data processing, an unclear VOG application or a threatening employment law consequence that requires timely attention.

Not every function uses the same screening tool

Some positions are subject to special legal regimes or additional screening. Justis describes the VOG police data as a separate tool for designated functions, which also includes police data. An ordinary employer cannot bring every position under such a regime through its own label. Therefore, ask for the precise legal context. A position that requires integrity does not mean that the same document and the same powers automatically apply as for a legally designated special position.

A change of employer or work can also have consequences for the desired profile. An old statement is not automatically the correct answer to a new specific request. Discuss practical reuse options with the applicant organization and check the official conditions. In addition, make a distinction between information that the competent screening authority may assess and information that the employer itself receives. The fact that an official body uses data does not automatically justify sending that underlying data to the entire application committee. The destination remains a question of its own.

After the conversation, careful data use remains necessary

If data has already been provided, ask what is done with it and whether unnecessary copies can be deleted. The information about the personnel file emphasizes the importance of necessity and careful processing. Even after employment, a complete criminal file does not automatically become an appropriate standard part of the administration. Make a note of what information was shared and with whom. If there is any uncertainty, you can ask specific questions about the use, instead of only trying to reconstruct the distribution during the next conflict.

Our editorial analysis is that a good information boundary supports both privacy and reliability. The employer gets a better answer when it is clear which risk and instrument are meant, while the applicant discloses less unnecessary information. Combine a factual response with timely specialized assistance when a contract, dismissal or a special position is at stake. A VOG assessment, privacy question and employment law consequences are related, but each requires its own test. That separation makes the next step concrete without requiring a general judgment about someone's entire past.