View your judicial documentation and correct inaccuracies

Replace a suspicion with the real registration

People often base their perception of a criminal record on an old fine, a verbal comment or the idea that an acquittal has erased everything. Those assumptions may be incorrect. Judicial documentation not only contains simple labels of right or wrong, but data about cases and settlements according to a legal regulation. The first useful step is therefore to determine which information is actually registered in your name and what the current outcome of a case is.

Our editorial analysis is that access is primarily a way to target the next question. Without an overview, a request for deletion can contest an unknown data or contact the wrong authority. With the overview you can distinguish whether a personal data is incorrect, a settlement is lacking or a statement is considered correct but unfavorable. These situations require different routes. Viewing a record does not mean that its significance for every job or procedure is immediately determined.

Justid, Justis and police are different sources

The Judicial Information Service manages judicial documentation. Justis assesses, among other things, VOG applications. Police data and the criminal file again have their own framework. A request to see your criminal record is therefore not automatically a request to receive all official reports or all police contacts. Justid's explanation about access and correction and the frequently asked questions help you choose the right route. (explanation from Justid about inspection and correction · frequently asked questions)

If there is any uncertainty, ask which data file and which decision you want to check. Anyone who disputes a specific VOG rejection must also monitor the VOG procedure. Anyone who wants to prepare the contents of an ongoing criminal case will need other documents than just a registration overview. The criminal file guide covers that basics. A general privacy message to all authorities at the same time does not automatically make the question more complete and can actually spread unnecessary personal data. (criminal file)

Use the current official access route

Justid describes the application procedure and the way in which access to or an overview of your own judicial data can be obtained. Use the current official instruction for identity and shipping. Do not send an identity document or sensitive data to an unknown commercial intermediary because it promises a faster criminal record. A lawyer can help define the question if it is unclear what information is required. Save the application and confirmation.

Write down the purpose of the inspection for yourself: to check a factual registration, compare a received decision or prepare a question for a VOG interview. That purpose is not the same as permission to share the entire overview with an employer. An overview may contain more than is necessary for that third party. Therefore, discuss separately what information is requested and what legal or contractual context it involves. Private access should not unknowingly become an unlimited distribution of criminal law data.

Read case, status and settlement together

Check identification, numbers, dates and the current decision per case. An original suspicion and the subsequent settlement should not be read without distinction. A dismissal, acquittal, conviction or other decision has its own meaning. If a procedure is still ongoing, it may be relevant as such. Create your own summary with location, but keep the exact registration and the official decision available to be able to assess a difference.

An unknown term first requires an explanation. It is not automatically a mistake. Ask the lawyer or Justice how the field in question should be read before formulating a correction. If a case number is not recognizable, an old document can help make the link. Don't just compare a date on a call with a date on a final decision; these could be different events. The aim is that the alleged error is based on the same type of information.

Name a factual error in concrete terms

Justid states that a rectification request may relate to factual inaccuracies and that Justid does not decide on the content of the criminal case. A useful request therefore mentions the registration, the incorrect data, the correct information and the source. Consider incorrect personal data or incorrectly processed settlement, insofar as the documents support this. A general statement that you think the case is unfair is another question. (rectification request may relate to factual inaccuracies)

Place a copy or relevant passage of the official decision next to the disputed field. Explain what the attachment shows. Do not use a self-made modified version of a statement as proof of the desired correction. If the problem concerns the original decision itself, the lawyer must assess what criminal route, if any, still exists. A request for correction is not a way to have the question of guilt reconsidered outside the legal remedies rules.

Correction is not the same as erasing what is unfavorable

A correctly registered settlement does not automatically disappear because it hinders work or an application. The Judicial and Criminal Procedure Data Act contains its own retention framework. Justid explains that a general invocation of the GDPR right to be forgotten is not the same route for this documentation. The question of whether a piece of information is incorrect must therefore be separated from the question of how long correct information is kept according to the law. (Judicial and Criminal Procedure Data Act)

The deepening of retention periods places this time question next to the VOG review period. A short lookback period does not mean that the same data has been removed from the documentation. An acquittal can also be registered without being a conviction. Therefore, discuss what you really want to change: a factual error, an incomplete status or an incorrect application in another decision. Using just the word delete makes those differences invisible. (How long are judicial data retained?)

Fictional example: the settlement is missing in the own summary

Suppose that Faye sees a registration in a fictitious situation and thinks that there is still an open case. There is a letter of dismissal in her own folder. When checking, it must first become clear whether the overview actually states an open status or whether it misreads a historical part. If a relevant settlement has been processed incorrectly, the dismissal letter is a concrete source for a specific request. The example does not prove that every entry after a dismissal is wrong.

Faye and her lawyer compare the field, the case number and the official decision. The request only states the concrete difference and the desired factual correction. A VOG application that is in progress is monitored in a separate calendar. This prevents waiting for a registration response from automatically being seen as a postponement of the VOG period. The example shows how one document can support several questions without merging all procedures.

Ask for a recognizable decision on the request

Save the submitted correction request and the attachments. Justid's service information describes treatment, possible consultation with the Public Prosecution Service and follow-up in the event of rejection. Ask what information is still missing and to which part an answer relates. An acknowledgment of receipt is not an assigned correction. A telephone explanation can help, but does not automatically replace a formal decision if there is a dispute about it. (service information from Justid)

Read a denial with the remedies information and have the term checked. Repeating the same general wish is not automatically an objection to the decision taken. If a correction is made, ask what data was actually changed and check whether that resolves the original error. An amended registration does not automatically decide how another authority should revise a decision that has already been made. This may require a separate follow-up step.

Connect a registration response and a Certificate of Good Conduct decision

Justis assesses the relevance of data for the purpose of a Certificate of Good Conduct application according to its own framework. Justis' assessment explanation discusses profile, review period and interests. A correction request from Justid does not automatically stop a current response period at Justis. Report a relevant registration error via the appropriate route and ask the lawyer what response is required in the VOG procedure while that error is still being investigated. (assessment explanation from Justis)

A favorable overview without the expected error is also no personal guarantee for every Certificate of Good Conduct or foreign admission. The right question remains which decision and which goal now lies ahead. Do not send the entire overview to an employer unsolicited to prove a legal point. A limited explanation or the own VOG procedure may be more appropriate, depending on the context. Privacy and substantive assessment each deserve a separate discussion.

A view and error log

Use this editorial format to make the question specific. It is not an official request form and is not proof that a modification should be granted. Enter a conjecture as a conjecture and link any desired correction to an existing source. This allows the lawyer or manager to see more quickly whether a factual statement, interpretation or underlying decision is under discussion.

• File: judicial documentation, criminal file or police data; correct route determined?
• Indication: case number, field, date and exact location.
• Problem: factual error, incomplete status, unknown term or substantive objection?
• Source: Which official decision or other document shows the correct information?
• Request: specific correction, date, destination and receipt.
• Answer: explanation, assigned change or formal rejection with own deadline.
• Other procedure: VOG or other decision monitored separately and informed if necessary?