Written by Melanie Schulpen, attorney at Arslan Advocaten. Registered in the specialisation register of the Netherlands Bar for criminal law (and juvenile criminal law) and administrative law.
Nederlands: Lees dit artikel in het Nederlands: VOG P geweigerd op basis van politiegegevens: controle, zienswijze en bezwaar
Türkçe: Bu makaleyi Türkçe okuyun: Polis verileri nedeniyle VOG P reddi: kontrol, görüş bildirme ve itiraz
A VOG P (certificate of conduct based on police data) can be refused on the basis of police data, even without a criminal conviction. That sets it apart from the ordinary VOG. First check whether your position falls within the designated VOG P positions and which data Justis is relying on. In a written response (zienswijze) or an objection you can raise, among other things, the accuracy, reliability, currency and significance of those data for the work.
A refusal can come as a surprise when you have no criminal record. Perhaps you were once registered as a person involved in an incident, or information turns out to have been wrongly linked to you. The legal assessment then requires more than simply showing that you have never been convicted. You need to know which source information is being used for which risk.
What is a VOG based on police data?
The VOG P is a special certificate for designated positions with high integrity requirements. In the assessment, police data are always consulted in addition to judicial data. The ministerial designation determines which positions this screening is intended for; an employer cannot, at its own discretion, bring any ordinary job under the same regime.
Check the application and the job description for that reason. Is it really a VOG P or an ordinary VOG? The abbreviation is sometimes used loosely in conversation. Ask your employer for the details with which the application was prepared.
Justis describes the purpose and distinctive features of the VOG P. The key point is that, for this certificate, police data can in themselves constitute a ground for refusal. That makes a careful check of the registration all the more important.
No criminal record does not automatically mean the certificate is issued
For the VOG P, relevant police information can carry weight even if no criminal case has resulted in a conviction. Pointing out that you have no criminal record then addresses only part of the screening. Ask which specific data support the negative assessment.
A registration is not the same as a proven criminal offence. That is precisely why it must be examined what your role was, what the information contains and how reliable it is. The decision must make the connection with the risks of the position for which the certificate is requested.
Do not let the concepts become blurred. A police report, an observation, a suspicion and a judicial finding each have a different status. Your response will be stronger if it identifies those differences precisely and supports them with documents.
Checking your role in the registration
Justis explains that information in which you appear only as a victim, a person who reported an offence or a witness is not provided in the same way for this screening. Where data concern you as a suspect or a person involved, the police first assess their reliability and whether they can be provided. Read the official explanation of how the VOG P is assessed.
So check whether your role has been recorded correctly. Were you the person under suspicion, a bystander or the person who was actually asking for help? An incorrect description of your role can have major consequences for how an incident is interpreted.
Request appropriate access or an explanation, and gather your own documents about the incident. Think of correspondence, a notice of the outcome of a case or information showing why you were present. Make clear what you know yourself and what you have only heard from others.
Which features of police data matter?
Justis looks, among other things, at the nature, frequency, currency and interrelationship of police data. A single old incident may therefore be assessed differently from several recent registrations that point to a pattern. The reasoning must make clear what significance is attached to the data.
Where there are several registrations, ask whether they really concern different events. Sometimes several entries describe the same incident. Without careful assessment, that must not create the impression of repeated conduct. Draw up an overview with date, location and event.
Context can also be relevant. An isolated passage from a longer report can give an incomplete picture. State which information is missing and why it changes the interpretation. A response must go further than a general statement that you do not recognise yourself in the file.
The relationship with your position
The VOG P assesses integrity in the light of the designated position. This may involve powers, access to sensitive information or other special responsibilities. Ask which specific risks Justis sees and how the data used relate to them.
A job description must genuinely match your duties. Do you have independent access to systems, do you take decisions, or do you work subject to certain controls? Have the employer explain the actual work. Avoid a narrowed description that is intended only to make the risk appear smaller.
The fact that you are motivated or will be filling a shortage occupation does not remove the need for screening. The interest in the work can, however, be part of the balancing exercise. Make it concrete with a start date, a contract and the consequences of a refusal.
Look-back periods: distinguishing two types of data
For the VOG P, longer look-back periods apply to judicial data, depending on the designated position. For some categories a very long period may apply. The ordinary rules for young people may not simply be applied to a VOG P.
For police data, you must also look at the rules on availability and provision and at the substantive weighting of how recent they are. A statement that “anything older than ten years does not count” is therefore too simplistic. Have both data streams assessed separately.
Record the date and source of each item of data. The date on which a criminal case was disposed of and the date of a police entry are not necessarily the same. Without that distinction, an objection may rest on an incorrect calculation of the period.
Access to and correction of police data
If you suspect an error, find out which access or correction procedure applies to the body processing the data. A request to Justis for the decision file and a request to the police about the source registration may serve different purposes. Both may be relevant.
Make a correction request specific. Identify the registration, the error and the evidence of the correct situation. A request to delete all unfavourable data because you need a job is something different from a request to rectify a case of mistaken identity or an incorrectly recorded role.
Restrictions may apply to access or provision. If your request is refused, have the reasons given and the available legal remedies assessed. Do not silently accept the outcome in the VOG P procedure, but explain which data you dispute and why.
Do not wait for a correction before responding
A correction request does not automatically stop the period for a written response or objection. Respond in time, therefore, to the VOG P notice of intended refusal or decision. State which information you have requested and enclose proof of the request.
If necessary, submit a reasoned request for time to file additional documents. Check whether that time is actually granted and until what date. A staff member who says the file is being looked at has not necessarily extended a formal deadline.
Keep all acknowledgements of receipt and draw up an overview of pending requests. This allows your legal representative to prevent the procedure from being concluded on the basis of an incomplete or outdated file without your position having been clearly put forward.
Written response to an intended refusal
If you receive a notice of intended refusal, you can usually submit a written response within two weeks. Begin with the factual and legal points in the letter. Which information is incorrect, incomplete or insufficiently relevant to the position? Add the most useful supporting evidence for each point.
Then address your personal circumstances and your interest in the work. A statement from an employer or supervisor can be relevant if it confirms specific facts. Do not settle for general words of appreciation; have them set out, for example, which duties you have previously carried out responsibly and how that is known.
Your explanation must be carefully considered if a criminal case is still pending. Coordinate statements about the events with your criminal defence. The VOG P procedure is not an appropriate place for a hasty, unprepared reconstruction of disputed facts.
Objection after a final refusal
After a final refusal you can, in principle, lodge an objection within six weeks. Justis offers a digital and a written route for this. Check the current instructions and keep proof of submission. Justis explains the VOG P objection procedure.
Read the reasoning again, even if you have already submitted a written response. Justis may weigh data differently or address new information. The objection must respond to the final decision and make clear which points, in your view, have not been handled with due care.
Request the file and discuss a possible hearing. Distinguish between a factual correction, a legal objection to the use of data and the balancing of interests. That structure helps to assess each element separately.
The role of an advisory committee
For the VOG P there is an advisory committee that reviews the quality and diligence of the process on a sample basis. Consent to share a written response for that purpose is something different from an ordinary legal remedy against your individual refusal.
So do not assume that a request to a committee replaces your objection or suspends the time limit. Check which procedure is actually running and who decides on your application. The explanation in your letter and the official information are decisive here.
If you also wish to file a complaint about how you were treated, keep it separate from the substantive grounds of objection. A complaint can be relevant, but it does not automatically change a refusal.
Consequences for work and possible urgency
Ask your employer what happens if the VOG P is not available on the agreed date. Can the start be postponed, or is other work temporarily possible? Have any arrangements put in writing. An employment contract may contain its own conditions that need to be assessed separately.
Where objection or appeal proceedings are pending, a request for interim relief (voorlopige voorziening) may be considered if you cannot await the outcome. Losing a job can weigh heavily, but it gives no automatic entitlement to issue of the certificate or temporary admission. The special integrity interests remain part of the assessment.
Support the consequences with documents: contract, start date, correspondence and financial information. Also explain which alternatives have been explored. A concrete file makes clear which temporary measure would be needed.
Fictitious example: one incident in several registrations
An applicant receives a notice of intended refusal listing several police entries. On reading it, it becomes clear that several registrations relate to the same evening. The applicant also believes that his role has been wrongly described as that of an active participant.
A useful written response organises the entries by event and explains, with documents, which role is disputed. It then asks how frequency and connection were assessed. The aim is not to dismiss the registration with a general denial, but to make the factual basis verifiable.
This example is fictitious. A single incident can also be relevant; conversely, several documents must not be treated as several separate incidents without explanation. The reasoning determines what the defence needs to focus on.
One event can appear in several registrations
Several police registrations do not necessarily mean that there have been several separate incidents. A report, a supplementary account and follow-up contact may all relate to the same event. Ask, therefore, how Justis combined and weighed the data.
Draw up an overview at event level. For each incident, state the date, your role and the associated registrations. This makes it possible to check whether the reasoning wrongly gives the impression of a repeated pattern.
| Element | Point to check |
|---|---|
| Event | Is it one incident or demonstrably different occurrences? |
| Your role | Were you a suspect, a person involved, a witness, the person reporting or a victim? |
| Source | Is it a first-hand observation or information from someone else? |
| Follow-up | Was additional or corrective information recorded later? |
| Link with the position | What risk does Justis see for the specific work? |
A correct registration may still call for context. If, for example, you were present in a situation without having engaged in the conduct suggested in the notice of intended refusal, point to the passages that clarify your role.
Requesting information without losing your response period
A request to the police for access or correction can take time. Keep a separate record, therefore, of when you must respond to the VOG P notice of intended refusal or decision. A pending data request does not automatically extend that deadline.
State in your response which information you have requested and why it is needed. Enclose the request and an acknowledgement of receipt if that clarifies the point. If necessary, submit a reasoned request for additional time, but only assume an extension once it has been confirmed.
Even with an incomplete file you can sometimes already raise a specific point. For example, that Justis does not explain how your role in a registration relates to the position. Make clear which explanation or additional information is needed to be able to respond on the substance.
If the requested information arrives later, submit it in a targeted way. State which earlier objection it supports or which assumption it corrects. That way an extensive file does not simply become larger, but also easier to assess.
Keep a clear distinction between the data and the VOG P decision. A correction may be relevant to Justis, but you must continue to follow the pending procedure yourself and challenge any unfavourable decision in time.
Ask for an explanation of an unclear risk description
Sometimes a notice of intended refusal lists several registrations without clearly explaining what specific risk they pose for the position. In that case, identify which step in the reasoning is missing. Ask how the data, your role and the work are connected.
Provide the correct job description. If Justis assumes access or powers that you will not have, have the employer explain the facts. If those powers do exist, they must be taken into account honestly.
A request for better reasoning does not automatically mean that the certificate must be issued. It does help to determine which element you need to address on the substance.
Focus your response on verifiable questions. A general accusation that every police registration is unreliable offers less to go on than a specific indication that the source, currency or link with the position in your file is insufficiently clear.
Frequently asked questions
Can a VOG P be refused without a criminal record?
Yes. For the VOG P, police data can in themselves constitute a ground for refusal. That is why the accuracy and significance of those data matter, in addition to any judicial records.
Does every employer get access to my police data?
No. The VOG P is intended for designated positions and the data are assessed in the screening process. That does not mean your employer receives your full police file.
Does a registration as a victim count?
Justis states that data in which a person appears only as a victim, a person who reported an offence or a witness are not provided in the same way for this screening. Have it checked whether your role has been registered correctly if there is any doubt about this.
Can I wait for a correction first?
Do not let a procedural deadline expire as a result. A request for access or correction does not automatically suspend the period for a written response or objection. Respond in time and explain which information is still being looked into.
Can my employer ask for an ordinary VOG instead of a VOG P?
If a VOG P has been designated for the position, an ordinary VOG cannot simply replace that requirement. Do check, however, whether the application actually belongs to the correct position.
Which documents are needed for legal assistance?
The application details, the job description, the notice of intended refusal or decision, available source documents and earlier correction requests. Also state the start date of the job and the final date for responding.
Have the data and the reasoning assessed
When a VOG P is refused, a careful review of the file is important. Submit the documents to Arslan Advocaten. Also read about the general VOG procedure and the explanation of how to correct judicial data. The source registration and the decision each call for their own targeted approach.
Read also
VOG after dismissal, acquittal or a pending criminal case
VOG look-back period: how far back does Justis look at your criminal record?
Permission for security work refused or security pass withdrawn
