An ongoing criminal case during a VOG application

Two procedures with different purposes

The criminal case concerns the accusation and a possible criminal settlement. The VOG procedure assesses whether relevant data hinders the purpose of the application. That assessment is not the same decision as a criminal conviction. Yet the same events can occur in both procedures. This makes it important to use the information carefully and not to pretend that an open case has already been definitively proven or is legally invisible.

Our editorial analysis is that the file interview should connect three questions. What is actually registered, what is the current status of the criminal case and what risk is associated with the requested position? A general statement that you are innocent can reflect a criminal position, but does not automatically answer all questions in the VOG procedure. Conversely, a VOG response may not become an unprepared substantive statement that is separate from the defense in the criminal case. Coordinate both lines with the lawyer.

What information can Justis obtain?

Justis' explanation mentions among the sources convictions, criminal orders, transactions, dismissals and open cases. The VOG policy framework further elaborates the assessment. It does not follow that every known police contact automatically leads to refusal. The type of data, the applicable rules and the purpose of the application must be assessed. A regular VOG and a special screening, such as a VOG with police data, are also not necessarily the same. (explanation from Justis · VOG policy framework)

Ask which data is used in the specific application and what status is stated. An outdated open registration while a final decision already exists is a different problem than an actual ongoing prosecution. Inspection or correction at Justid can then be its own step. Waiting for this does not automatically prevent a Certificate of Good Conduct period. Let the lawyer determine how a possible registration error will be explained in the VOG procedure. (Justid)

Describe the criminal case without claiming more than is established

Make a difference between a suspicion, summons, ruling at first instance and a pending appeal. Note which decision actually exists and whether it is final. A lawyer can confirm the status based on the documents. Your own announcement that the case is about to be dismissed is not a decision to dismiss the case. The lack of new mail also does not prove that the persecution has ended.

A good status note mentions the number, phase and relevant pieces, with reserved wording about unknown outcomes. She does not have to disclose the entire defense or the complete criminal file to an employer or other third party. Discuss what information is needed for Justis and what substantive explanation must first be agreed with the criminal lawyer. The goal is accuracy and coherence, not presenting a reassuring final story as early as possible.

The function determines which risks are relevant

Justis uses the screening profile associated with the application to assess the relevance of data. Access to money, vulnerable people, confidential information or certain transport tasks may raise other questions. An old Certificate of Good Conduct for a different position therefore does not automatically say what the new outcome will be. Ask whether the profile and job description actually match the work. An incorrect or too broad profile can be a concrete question, but should not be artificially narrowed to hide relevant tasks.

Describe the actual work and any actual guarantees. Anyone who only performs administrative tasks may have a different role than someone with independent financial powers. The absence of a certain risk must be evident from the position and not just from the applicant's wishes. The lawyer can assess how the relationship between data and function is discussed. An employer's interest in rapid employment is relevant to the personal consequences, but does not replace the legal test of the risk.

Carefully connect lookback period and open status

The VOG review periods have main rules and exceptions. The policy framework also contains principles for the date on which data is posted within a period. That is not always simply the day of the incident. Special principles may apply in the case of an open case and certain categories. A self-made calculation using only the date of the crime and age can therefore give an incorrect expectation. (VOG review periods)

Have the relevant date and line with the specific data checked. It does not make sense to just choose the most favorable date for you from a pile of documents. Record ruling, decision, dismissal and any open status separately. Justid's retention period is another time question. The in-depth criminal record retention period shows why a piece of information can still exist while the screening has its own period and assessment purpose. (How long are judicial data retained?)

An intention does not constitute a final refusal

If Justis intends to refuse the Certificate of Good Conduct, an opinion can be submitted. The public explanation mentions a period of two weeks after the date of the intention. A final rejection has a different remedy route. Therefore, read the title and instructions of the letter received and have the specific deadline checked immediately. A telephone request for more time is not an automatic extension. (public explanation)

A targeted view responds to the data used, their status, relevance and personal interests. Only include appropriate substantiation. If a factual error exists, identify it specifically with a source. If the registration is correct but the risk assessment is contested, this should remain recognizable as another argument. A long story about the entire criminal case can obscure the core and contain unnecessary explanations. Therefore, coordinate the content with the lawyer.

Substantiate personal consequences without warranty

A job, internship or education may be at stake. Make these consequences concrete with a job description, starting time and factual information about the necessity of the Certificate of Good Conduct. A statement from an employer can confirm the consequences, but does not decide the risk itself. Development, treatment or the absence of new relevant incidents may also be important according to the applicable framework. The assessment remains dependent on the concrete situation.

Avoid absolute promises that something will never happen again or that a treatment will definitely succeed. Describe confirmed steps and limitations honestly. A consequence that is serious for the applicant does not automatically outweigh the risk assessed by Justis. Precisely for this reason, the data used, the profile and the interests must each have their own substantiation. The request does not become stronger by merely instigating personal need while a legal error remains undiscussed.

Fictional example: an ongoing business and a new administrative position

Suppose a fictitious applicant has an open criminal case and is offered an administrative position. The application contains a profile that also includes independent financial decisions. First it must be checked whether those tasks are actually part of the position. It is incorrect to only want to change the profile in a beneficial way; it is relevant to correct a factual inaccuracy in the job description. The open criminal case also remains its own status that must be described correctly.

The lawyer compares the position, the data used and the intention. A limited employer's statement confirms the actual powers. The criminal status is explained with existing documents without predicting a future acquittal. Any opinion will address both the profile question and other relevant considerations. The example shows that a targeted response can consist of several layers and is not replaced by just the sentence that there has been no conviction yet.

Pass on a new criminal decision in a timely manner

If a dismissal, acquittal or other relevant decision follows during the VOG procedure, this may change the data basis. Save the entire decision and ask how it is inserted correctly. Merely reporting verbally that things turned out well may not be precise enough. Moreover, an acquittal at first instance and a final acquittal do not have the same procedural status. The applicable consequences must be assessed in the appropriate context.

In the meantime, keep an eye on deadlines. A new criminal outcome does not automatically mean that an already taken VOG decision will be revised without action. Ask what formal step is needed and which agency should receive the information. The in-depth dismissal or acquittal and judicial data discusses registration and use separately. An update can be important, but must be verifiably linked to the ongoing procedure. (Dismissal or acquittal and your judicial details)

A status file for the application

The editorial overview below will help guide the conversation with the attorney. It is not a calculation of probability or a guarantee of delivery. Use only current, confirmed information and mark expectations as expectations. Keep your own criminal case and VOG procedure visible, each with their own deadlines, so that the assessment can take place based on correct data without missing a formal step.

• Application: purpose, function, actual tasks and screening profile used.
• Registration: which data and status are actually used?
• Criminal case: phase, number, existing decisions and possible finality.
• Time: relevant date and controlled lookback rule, not just your own addition.
• Response: intention, opinion, final decision or objection with its own term.
• Substantiation: limited documents about error, function, development and concrete consequences.
• Update: new decision, correct method of submission and confirmed receipt.