Certificate of Good Conduct (VOG): What It Declares and When It Is Refused

A certificate of good conduct (Verklaring Omtrent het Gedrag, VOG) is the document Dutch employers ask for and, almost as often, the document Dutch applicants misunderstand. It is not a printout of a criminal record, and it does not say that someone has none.

Artikel 28 Wjsg is the whole definition, and it is narrower than the reputation suggests. The certificate states that an investigation into the conduct of the person concerned, having regard to the risk to society in connection with the purpose for which issue was requested, and after weighing that person's interest, has not shown objections.

Almost everything the system does follows from reading that sentence carefully. This page unpacks it: what the certificate declares, what Justis actually reads, how the two part test works, and what happens when the answer is no.

Information last verified on 21 July 2026. This page provides general legal information about Netherlands law and does not constitute legal advice in an individual case.

What the certificate declares, and what it does not

The purpose is part of the statement. A certificate is issued in connection with the purpose for which it was requested, so it is an answer about one job, one task or one permit, not a general character reference.

That has a consequence people rarely expect. The same person can hold a valid certificate for one role and be refused one for another on the same day, on the same records, without anything having gone wrong.

The certificate also carries no detail. There is no score, no grade and no list of what was found, because the finding is simply that no objections emerged. Nothing about the applicant's record is disclosed to the employer by the document itself.

Where nothing relevant appears in the judicial records within the applicable window, the Beleidsregels direct that the certificate is in principle issued. Where there are records, the assessment below decides.

A decision, not a document

Artikel 29 Wjsg does something small on the page and large in practice: it provides that the decision on issuing a certificate counts as a beschikking within the meaning of artikel 1:3 lid 2 Awb.

That single sentence imports the whole of the Algemene wet bestuursrecht (Awb). Reasons, the chance to be heard before a refusal, an objection stage, an appeal to a court and a further appeal are all consequences of it rather than concessions by Justis.

It also fixes who the counterparty is. The decision is taken by the Minister of Justice and Security through Justis, so an applicant contests the state, not the employer that asked for the certificate.

When a certificate is required

For some functions a certificate is required by law. Justis names teachers, host parents in childcare (gastouders) and taxi drivers as examples, and the government sets out which occupations carry the requirement.

Outside those functions it is the employer's call. Where no legal requirement applies, the employer decides for itself whether to ask for a certificate at all.

The purposes go beyond employment. Justis lists visas, permits and emigration, and membership of a shooting association, alongside paid work, internships, self employed assignments and volunteering.

A separate variant exists for organisations. The certificate for legal entities (VOG rechtspersonen, VOG RP) examines the judicial past of the entity and of its directors, partners and managers, and is used for contracts and for membership of trade bodies. Artikel 32 lid 2 Wjsg sets out what such an application must contain, including the Kamer van Koophandel registration number or, where there is no registration, the entity's name, legal form and place of establishment.

What Justis reads

The core source is the judicial documentation (justitiële documentatie), the register people mean when they say strafblad. Artikel 36 lid 1 Wjsg lets the Minister take note of judicial data on the applicant and of police data, and lid 3 allows further information to be sought from the public prosecution service (Openbaar Ministerie) and from the probation service (reclassering).

Two categories are carved out. Artikel 35 lid 3 Wjsg excludes offences disposed of by an irrevocable acquittal from the judgment altogether, and the Beleidsregels VOG-NP-RP 2025 exclude technical dismissals, where procedural circumstances stood in the way of a successful prosecution, while keeping policy based dismissals in.

The policy rules are also explicit that more than convictions can count. Paragraaf 3.1.3.1 names the content of a summons (dagvaarding), a notice of further or discontinued prosecution, a declaration ending a case (eindezaakverklaring) and policy dismissals as things that can play a role.

Police data enters by a different door, and the difference matters. Artikel 36 lid 1 Wjsg is a power to consult rather than a ground for refusal, so on an ordinary application police records can inform the investigation without carrying the decision. Only for the designated high integrity functions of artikel 35a Wjsg do police data form an independent refusal ground in their own right.

Artikel 36 lid 4 Wjsg closes the loop on all of it: data supplied for this purpose may not be used for any other.

The two part test

This is the heart of the topic, and the part most summaries reduce to a single sentence when it is actually two separate questions asked in sequence.

The objective criterion

Artikel 35 lid 1 Wjsg states the rule: the Minister refuses where the judicial documentation shows an offence which, if repeated, given the risk to society and the other circumstances of the case, would stand in the way of the purpose for which the certificate is sought.

The Beleidsregels VOG-NP-RP 2025 break that into four elements: a judicial record, the assumption of repetition, a risk to society, and an obstruction to proper performance of the function, task or activity.

Two features of this stage regularly surprise applicants, and the policy rules say both outright. Whether the offence took place in private life is not relevant, and whether there is a real risk of reoffending is not relevant either. The question is hypothetical: if this or a similar offence were committed by a person carrying out this role, would society be at risk.

The subjective criterion

Where the objective test is met, refusal is only the starting point. The policy rules provide that the applicant's interest in obtaining the certificate can outweigh society's interest in protection against the risk just established, and in that case the certificate is issued anyway.

That second half is statutory, not merely policy, which is what makes it arguable on objection. Artikel 28 Wjsg requires the decision to be taken after weighing the interest of the person concerned (na afweging van het belang van betrokkene), so the Beleidsregels elaborate a weighing the Act already demands rather than adding one of their own.

Three circumstances are always weighed: how the criminal case was disposed of, how much time has passed, and how many antecedents there are. Where the applicant was a minor when the offence was committed, that is taken into account as well.

Where those factors leave genuine doubt, the policy rules allow the circumstances in which the offence was committed to be brought into the assessment too.

There are two areas where this second stage is deliberately narrow. For sexual offences in a role involving authority or dependency, or at a location with vulnerable people, and for terrorist offences in comparable roles, the policy rules apply a sharpened framework whose starting point is refusal, and a certificate can then be issued only where refusal would be evidently disproportionate.

How far back the assessment reaches

Only records inside the lookback period (terugkijktermijn) are weighed under the objective criterion. Paragraaf 3.1.1 of the Beleidsregels fixes that window at four years counted back from the moment of assessment, and departs from it only in the exceptions it names.

One point is worth separating out, because it is routinely run together. The screening profile does not set the length of the window: it decides which offences are relevant to this particular role, and the length is fixed separately by paragraaf 3.1.1. The two meet only where a profile leads Justis to treat a role as carrying high integrity requirements, which is the judgment that moves the term from four years to ten.

The full table, every exception the policy rules name, the date each entry is measured by and a worked example are on VOG lookback periods.

The police data variant, and continuous screening

Artikel 35a Wjsg creates a second, stricter instrument for functions designated by ministerial regulation that require a high degree of integrity. There police data form an independent ground for refusal in their own right, and no lookback period is applied to them at all. Which functions are designated, and what limits the data instead of a window, are set out on VOG lookback periods.

A different mechanism applies in childcare and to holders of a taxi card. The Beleidsregels VOG-NP-RP 2025 describe continuous screening (continue screening), in which the judicial information service (Justitiële informatiedienst, Justid) continuously checks the Justitieel Documentatie Systeem for changes and passes signals on.

Justis then assesses those signals against the same objective and subjective criteria. Where it provisionally concludes that there is an obstruction to proper performance of the role, it informs the relevant supervisor, and the supervisor decides whether to ask the person for a new certificate.

Seeing your own records

An applicant does not have to guess what is on file. Artikel 18 Wjsg gives a right of access (inzage): on written request to the Minister, confirmation within six weeks of whether judicial records concerning that person are processed and, where they are, an overview of them. Artikel 22 Wjsg adds rights of rectification, destruction and shielding.

How to make that request, what the overview has to contain, and the statutory retention periods in artikelen 4 and 6 Wjsg are set out on Dutch criminal records and the JDS.

When Justis intends to refuse

A negative outcome arrives in two stages, which is why artikel 37 lid 2 Wjsg gives Justis eight weeks rather than four where it intends to decide against an application.

The first stage is the notice of intended refusal (voornemen tot afwijzen). Artikel 4:7 Awb obliges an administrative body to give an applicant the chance to put a point of view (zienswijze) before rejecting an application wholly or partly, where the rejection would rest on facts and interests concerning the applicant that differ from what the applicant supplied. The notice states the period for responding.

The second stage is the decision itself. Artikel 7:1 Awb requires an objection (bezwaar) to Justis before any court, and artikel 6:7 Awb gives six weeks for it, running from the day after the decision was announced under artikel 6:8 Awb.

From there, artikel 8:1 and artikel 8:6 Awb open an appeal (beroep) to the administrative court (bestuursrechter), which under artikel 8:7 lid 2 Awb is the rechtbank in whose district the applicant lives. Artikel 8:105 lid 1 Awb sends a further appeal to the Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State. Six weeks applies at each stage.

Validity, and paying for help

The certificate has no expiry date. Justis explains that the assessment is a snapshot of one moment, so when a new one is needed depends on the employer or on the ministry responsible for the sector rules, not on the paper.

Justis also warns about commercial parties that charge extra to prepare a VOG application, and states that they gain the applicant nothing in speed or treatment.

The mechanics of applying, including the routes, the fees, the timing and that warning in full, are on how to apply for a VOG. The wider system sits on background checks in the Netherlands, and Netherlands law gives the surrounding structure.