Dutch Criminal Records: Strafblad, the JDS and What Is Registered

Most Dutch readers call it a strafblad. The word is everywhere, but it is not a legal term and there is no document by that name. What exists is the judicial records system (justitiële documentatie), a national register held in the Justitieel Documentatie Systeem, usually shortened to JDS.

The register is governed by the Wet justitiële en strafvorderlijke gegevens (Wjsg) and filled in by the Besluit justitiële en strafvorderlijke gegevens (Bjsg). Between them, those two instruments decide what goes in, what stays out, how long it stays and who may see it.

That distinction is not pedantry. The question people actually want answered is whether a particular event is in there, and the answer turns on statutory categories rather than on whether something felt serious at the time.

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 JDS actually is

The JDS is a register of criminal cases, not a scorecard of convictions. It is administered on behalf of the Minister of Justitie en Veiligheid, and Justis is the service that deals with the public-facing parts of it, including the VOG and requests for access to your own file (inzage).

Artikel 3 Wjsg lays down the general principles for processing, including the duty in lid 7 to remove or destroy records once they are no longer necessary for the purpose or once a statutory rule requires it. Access is restricted under artikel 7 lid 7 Wjsg to people working under the controller or on their instruction.

There is no public search of the JDS, and no employer, landlord or bank can look someone up in it. The register is closed, and the only routine way information leaves it about an ordinary person is through the VOG decision, which reports a yes or a no rather than the contents.

What gets registered

Serious offences (misdrijven)

For serious offences (misdrijven) the threshold is low, and this is the part that surprises people most. Artikel 2 Bjsg treats the data listed in artikelen 6 and 7 Bjsg as judicial records for any case whose police file (proces-verbaal) has been taken in hand by the public prosecution service (Openbaar Ministerie).

Taken in hand is the trigger. No conviction is required, no court hearing is required, and the entry exists while the case is still open.

Artikel 7 lid 1 sub a Bjsg then records all decisions taken by the Openbaar Ministerie or by the court, with two exceptions and only two. A decision not to prosecute because the person was wrongly treated as a suspect is not recorded, and neither is a decision not to prosecute after it was established that an officer's use of force was lawful.

Everything else follows: the case number (parketnummer), the statutory provisions, the classification of the offence, the date or period of the offence, the sepot details, the strafbeschikking details, the court decision and its content, the execution of the sentence and the date of release.

Minor offences (overtredingen)

Minor offences (overtredingen) work differently, and there are three ways in rather than one. Two of them sit in artikel 3 Bjsg, and both require a threshold to be crossed.

The first is a disposal decision by the Openbaar Ministerie, excluding a punishment order (strafbeschikking) imposing only a fine of less than EUR 130, and excluding a decision not to prosecute further unless conditions were attached to it. The second is a court decision, and only where a community service order (taakstraf) or a custodial sentence other than a substitute one was imposed, or a fine of at least EUR 130, or an additional penalty.

The third route is the one most summaries leave out, and it removes those thresholds completely. Artikel 4 lid 1 Bjsg opens with the words in afwijking van artikel 3, by way of derogation from artikel 3, and applies the misdrijf trigger instead: for the overtredingen it lists, the entry is created as soon as the Openbaar Ministerie takes the proces-verbaal in hand.

Artikel 4 lid 2 Bjsg names twenty two categories. On the road traffic side they include artikel 5 WVW 1994 (endangering road safety), artikel 107 lid 1 WVW 1994 (driving without a licence) and artikel 110 lid 1 WVW 1994.

Beyond traffic they include the Wet wapens en munitie, the Alcoholwet, the Vreemdelingenwet 2000, the Wet op de kansspelen and the Wet op de economische delicten. They also include the fraud overtredingen of artikelen 447c and 447d Sr, and the public safety and public order overtredingen of Titels I and II of Boek 3 Sr.

For all of those the EUR 130 figure is simply not the test. Someone ticketed for driving without a licence, or under the Alcoholwet or the Vreemdelingenwet 2000, has a JDS entry from the moment the file reaches the Openbaar Ministerie, whatever the fine turned out to be.

What does stay out is the administrative traffic sanction. Most road fines are administrative penalties under the Wet Mulder, collected by the CJIB, and artikel 4 lid 2 sub l Bjsg confirms the line from the other side: the listed Reglement verkeersregels en verkeerstekens 1990 offences count only where no administrative sanction is imposed for them.

Strafbeschikking, transactie, sepot and acquittal

These four are where the guesswork usually happens, so they are worth taking one at a time.

A strafbeschikking is a punishment order issued by the Openbaar Ministerie without a court. Artikel 5 lid 1 Bjsg treats strafbeschikkingen under artikelen 257b and 257ba Sv as judicial records, except one issued for an overtreding imposing a fine below EUR 130. Artikel 7 lid 1 sub h Bjsg records the issue date, the penalties and directions imposed, the date it became irrevocable and the date it was fully executed.

A transactie, a settlement payment, was the older mechanism, offered by the Openbaar Ministerie to avoid prosecution, largely displaced by the strafbeschikking. It is a decision of the Openbaar Ministerie and so falls within artikel 7 lid 1 sub a Bjsg, and the Beleidsregels VOG-NP-RP 2025 confirm the point indirectly by using the transactie date as recorded in the JDS as one of the reference dates for the lookback period.

A sepot is a decision to drop the case. For a misdrijf the entry already exists, and artikel 7 lid 1 sub g Bjsg then records the date of the decision, the sepot code and any additional ground, the conditions attached to a conditional sepot, and the date all conditions were met. The sepot code matters, because a technical sepot and a policy sepot read very differently.

An acquittal is recorded as a court decision under artikel 7 lid 1 sub j Bjsg, along with the date it became irrevocable. Its effect for screening is neutralised elsewhere: artikel 35 lid 3 Wjsg excludes records of offences disposed of by an irrevocable acquittal (onherroepelijke vrijspraak) from the VOG assessment entirely.

How long an entry stays

Retention is fixed by statute, in artikelen 4 and 6 Wjsg. It runs on the maximum sentence the offence carries in law, not on the sentence that was actually imposed, which is why a light sentence for a serious offence still produces a long retention period.

Two mechanics sit behind the table and are easy to miss.

Artikel 4 lid 2 Wjsg restarts the clock. Where a further final judgment is given against the same person for another misdrijf, the 20 or 30 year period runs again from that later judgment or from full execution of that later strafbeschikking, according to the sentence the later offence carries.

Artikel 4 lid 3 Wjsg is the extension for long sentences: the 30 year term is extended by 20 years where the prison sentence or custodial measure exceeds 20 years, and reaches 80 years for a life sentence or a measure exceeding 40 years.

There is no application to have an entry deleted early, and nobody has power to shorten a statutory retention period on request. What artikel 22 Wjsg provides for is a different thing entirely, which is correcting a record that is wrong.

Asking to see your own record

Artikel 18 Wjsg sets out the right of access (inzage). A written request to the Minister, handled in practice by Justis, produces confirmation of whether records are held and, if so, an overview of them.

The answer is due within six weeks and covers more than the list itself: the purposes and legal basis of the processing, the categories of data, whether records were supplied to anyone in the four years before the request and to which recipients, the expected storage period or the criteria for it, and the right to ask for correction, destruction or shielding.

Artikel 17a Wjsg requires the Minister to keep basic information accessible in advance, including the controller's identity, the purposes, the right to complain to the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens and the rights under artikelen 18 and 22 Wjsg. Artikel 17b Wjsg requires the information to be given in concise, plain language.

Artikel 21 Wjsg allows the overview to be limited or refused in defined circumstances, so an answer is not always complete, and the reason for any limitation is itself part of what can be challenged.

Correcting an error

Artikel 22 lid 1 Wjsg covers rectification of incorrect records and completion of incomplete ones. The request must be in writing and must state the changes sought, which means a bare assertion that something is wrong is not enough.

Artikel 22 lid 2 Wjsg covers destruction, and it is narrow: it applies where the records are being processed in breach of a legal rule, or where a legal rule requires destruction. Artikel 22 lid 3 Wjsg substitutes shielding for destruction in two cases, where the applicant disputes accuracy and it cannot be verified either way, and where the data must be kept as evidence.

The controller must say in writing within four weeks whether, and how far, the request is granted. Under artikel 22 lid 5 Wjsg a rectification is passed back to the authority the data came from, and under artikel 24 Wjsg, where incorrect or unlawfully supplied records have already gone out, the recipients are notified and the data must be rectified, destroyed or shielded.

Artikel 23 lid 1 Wjsg makes a decision on an artikel 18 or artikel 22 request a beschikking under artikel 1:3 lid 2 Awb, which opens the ordinary bezwaar and beroep route. Artikel 23 lid 2 Wjsg adds a second option: the person concerned can ask the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens to mediate or advise, and the appeal deadline then runs until six weeks after the AP reports that it has closed the case.

A JDS entry does not automatically block a VOG

This is the point most worth taking away, because the assumption that a record ends the matter causes people to abandon applications that would have been assessed on their merits.

Artikel 28 Wjsg frames the VOG as a statement that an investigation revealed no objections, judged against the risk to society for the purpose sought and after weighing the applicant's own interest. Artikel 35 lid 1 Wjsg then asks a conditional question: would this offence, if repeated, given the risk to society and the other circumstances, obstruct the purpose the certificate is sought for.

Both halves of that assessment are statutory, not merely policy, and that is worth being precise about. The objective test is artikel 35 lid 1 Wjsg. The weighing of the applicant's interest is written into artikel 28 Wjsg itself, which requires the decision to be taken after weighing the interest of the person concerned (na afweging van het belang van betrokkene).

The Beleidsregels elaborate that statutory test rather than create it. The objective criterion in paragraaf 3.1.3 asks whether the offence, repeated, would obstruct this specific role. The subjective criterion in paragraaf 3.1.4 weighs the applicant's own interest against that finding, looking at time elapsed, age at the time and the circumstances of the case, and it can produce a certificate even where the objective criterion is met.

Three filters sit in front of that test and each of them can take an entry out of play. Artikel 35 lid 3 Wjsg removes anything disposed of by an irrevocable acquittal. The lookback period removes entries outside the applicable window, which is four years in the ordinary case. And the screening profile removes entries that carry no relevance to the risks this particular role involves.

The full table of windows, the date each entry is measured by and a worked example are on VOG lookback periods. What the certificate is and where it is required is covered in the Dutch certificate of good conduct, and the mechanics of applying are in how to apply for a VOG.

The wider map of who decides what, and how the statutory chain fits together, is on background checks in the Netherlands.

Politiegegevens are a different register

Police data and judicial records are routinely confused, and they behave differently in almost every respect.

Politiegegevens are operational police records governed by the Wet politiegegevens (Wpg) and held by the politie. They include reports, observations recorded in a proces-verbaal, statements and signals that may never have reached the public prosecutors, so a person can appear in police systems with no JDS entry at all.

Retention is shorter and works on activity rather than on the seriousness of an offence. Artikel 8 lid 6 Wpg requires data processed for the daily policing task to be removed no later than five years after first processing, and artikel 10 lid 6 Wpg requires removal no later than five years after the last processing that showed the data was still needed. Artikel 14 Wpg carries the wider retention scheme.

The rights work in parallel with the Wjsg but are not identical. Artikel 25 Wpg gives a right, on written request, to confirmation within six weeks, with the same categories of information as artikel 18 Wjsg. Lid 2 allows that decision to be deferred by up to four weeks, or six where several regional units or a national unit process data about the person.

Artikel 26 Wpg deals with the formalities: identification, requests for children under sixteen through a legal representative, and requests made by a litigator (advocaat) holding a special authorisation. Artikel 28 Wpg covers rectification and destruction.

For screening, the two registers meet only in a narrow lane. Artikel 36 Wjsg lets the Minister consult police data when investigating any VOG application, but police data becomes an independent refusal ground only for the high-integrity functions designated under artikel 35a Wjsg, listed in the Regeling aanwijzing functies VOG politiegegevens. Data about the applicant as a victim, a reporter or a witness is not relevant there and is not passed on.