VOG look-back periods and exceptions

VOG - review and retention of a criminal record differ

The VOG assesses a risk for a specific purpose, such as a function or activity. The judicial documentation also has its own retention periods under the Judicial and Criminal Procedure Data Act. Those are two different clocks. A piece of data can still be saved even though it falls outside the usual review period for a normal VOG request. Conversely, special rules can ensure that data remains relevant to the application for longer. (Judicial and Criminal Procedure Data Act)

Our analysis starts with the question of which decision you are trying to understand. Do you want to know whether data still exists, which data Justis assesses or why a certain function has extra screening? These questions require different sources. The Judicial Information Service explains the storage and retention periods of judicial data; the assessment framework and the policy rules from 2025 apply to the VOG. This distinction prevents an elapsed VOG period from being interpreted as evidence that every registration should have been deleted.

Four years is a starting point with exceptions

Justis mentions four years as the standard for the regular VOG. That is a useful starting point, but not a universal rule for every application. First it must be determined which type of statement and which purpose is involved. An ordinary VOG for a job may have a different framework than the VOG police data or a special function. The job title alone sometimes says too little; the chosen screening profile and the actual tasks are important. (Justis mentions four years as the standard for the regular VOG)

Therefore, request the details of the request and check whether the description is correct. An incorrect or unnecessarily broad profile may raise other questions than the intended position justifies. That is no reason to change data yourself to obtain a more favorable assessment. Have an actual error corrected via the correct route. It is important for personal planning that a general countdown calculation only becomes meaningful after the correct framework and the relevant data have been established.

Do not automatically calculate back from the date of the commission

The VOG policy rules state principles for determining whether a judicial matter falls within the period. There is a sequence of events involved, such as the ruling in the first instance and, in the absence thereof, other settlement or registration dates. The date of the commission is therefore not the first date you should assume in every case. Special situations may also require their own rule. An online calculation without a process history can therefore be misleading. (VOG policies)

Create a timeline with date of committal, first verdict, criminal order, transaction or dismissal as applicable. Note what data actually exists and what is still ongoing. Have an advisor or Justis confirm the relevant reference date and exceptions. Different dates may be significant for different facts. The goal is not to choose the most favorable date, but to correctly place the information referred to in the policy rules. A later document may relate to an old event without every legal term therefore running from the same day.

A shorter term is not a general guarantee

A shorter review period may apply for young people up to the age of 23. There are exceptions for certain serious violent, subversive, sexual and terrorist offenses and for specific application purposes. The precise scope must be read from the current policy rules. The simple statement that everything no longer counts for every young person after two years is therefore incorrect. Age at the relevant assessment point and the type of data should be determined.

It is especially important for a young person that a fact does not automatically mean that a VOG is impossible for years. The substantive assessment remains dependent on risk and circumstances. Provide a concrete picture of training, internship, guidance and development when an opinion or objection is necessary. This does not replace the term rules, but may be relevant in the further assessment. An honest article must allow both truths to exist: exceptions can extend the look back, while a given within the period does not automatically lead to the refusal of every application.

The goal may involve a different period

Certain functions and activities have a different look back period. The current Justis information mentions several categories with longer terms. A random list from an old article may therefore be outdated or incomplete. Look at the specific application purpose and the current regulations. A job in the same sector is not always the same position or the same screening profile. The VOG police data also has its own framework that should not be equated with the regular VOG.

Ask the employer or applicant organization what type of declaration is needed and why. Check this before you incur costs or present an employment date as certain. An advisor can help compare the job details and the application form. The practical value lies in an appropriate application and realistic planning, not in the search for a narrower profile that conceals the actual work. An incorrect description can cause new problems later and does not help a reliable assessment.

Unlimited review is not the same as automatic denial

An unlimited review period may apply to certain categories, including sexual crimes and terrorist offenses. This means that the age of a given item does not limit the assessment in the same way. However, it is not simply a statement that every application for every purpose must always be refused. The applicable assessment framework and the concrete circumstances remain important. Stricter principles may apply in the case of special dependency relationships or functions.

Therefore, carefully compare the data and the desired function. A general reference to an old fact without content or context is insufficient for a responsible prediction. Conversely, an advisor may not provide assurance that a matter settled long ago is automatically unimportant. The Justis explanation of the assessment makes the function-oriented character visible. In the case of a proposed refusal, the response must be in line with the real motivation, not only with the number of years that have passed. (Justis -explanation of the assessment)

Deprivation of liberty can affect the calculation

Under certain circumstances, the policy rules take deprivation of liberty into account during the review period. Therefore, a simple calendar from a statement or event may be inadequate when someone has been incarcerated for a period. Have it determined which period and which scheme will be applied. Not every form of restriction is automatically the same as deprivation of liberty for every legal purpose. The concrete framework and the relevant registrations must be leading.

Collect the necessary execution data without distributing a complete detention file in an untargeted manner. A reliable start and end date can be more important than a general estimate of the number of months. If there are multiple periods, make them visible separately. Ask how this affects the concrete calculation. This step is intended to enable a correct assessment, not to explain away an unfavorable term. An error in the duration can be discussed, while the substantive risk analysis remains its own question.

An exception can also occur outside the normal period

Data outside the usual review period is not completely excluded in every situation. The policy rules have exceptions, including when the nature and severity of data pose a special risk. This is a legal exception that must be justified and not an unlimited freedom to always give the same weight to every old registration. When making a proposal or decision, ask which land is used and why it fits the application purpose.

Respond specifically with correct information about time, development and the position, where relevant. An objection that only says older than four years may lack an explicitly applied exception. At the same time, incorrect application of such an exception can be an important legal issue. Have the motivation read before sending a standard response. Factual inaccuracies in the underlying documentation also deserve their own correction route. A VOG objection and correcting a registration are related but different actions.

Fictional example: old fact, more recent first statement

A fictitious applicant counts four years from the date of the event and expects that the application will not cause any problems. However, the first statement came later. The intended function is also not yet well defined on the form. Those two pieces of information can change the assessment. The correct preparation therefore starts with the current application and the entire process, not just with the event date.

A targeted overview lists the relevant decisions and the actual activities. The advisor checks the policy choice of date and the applicable profile. The example does not predict a refusal. It shows why an incorrect self-count can create both false certainty and unnecessary fear. Data within the period still requires substantive assessment and data outside the period may fall under an exception. The calculation and risk assessment must each be understood on their own terms.

A term card for a concrete VOG request

Use the card to discuss facts and rules in the correct order. Check current exceptions at Justis and applicable policies. The map is not an automatic outcome calculation. It does help to clarify the relevant dates, the correct type of declaration and the motivation for any intention. Save receipt date and response time for all official correspondence.

• Request: regular VOG or other type, purpose, function and actual duties.
• Age: relevant age and possible applicability of the youth scheme.
• Data: nature of the fact and current process or settlement status.
• Dates: date of commission, first ruling and other relevant settlement moments.
• Exception: special offence, position, deprivation of liberty or assessment outside the term.
• Justification: rules used and concrete risk according to intention or decision.
• Follow-up: correct information, possible correction, view or objection and term monitoring.