In short
Not every conviction is removed on the same regime. The line to be discussed on the criminal record is first separated from the judgment as to whether it is a final conviction. Law No. 5352 separates criminal-record information from archive information. Placing a record in the archive does not destroy it. The fate of the information in the archive is read from the offence in the decision and from the regime in the statute. An acquittal, and deferral of the announcement of the verdict, do not enter this table like a conviction.
Is the line to be deleted a conviction first
A conviction line on the criminal record rests on a final criminal conviction. Before the judgment becomes final, an account is not built as if the period of the conviction archive were running. Which route of appeal finality depends on is in the article on the difference between appeal and cassation. If there is no endorsement, the line is not treated as having been entered as a final conviction. If there is an endorsement, for which offence and which defendant the endorsement fell is read from the text.
If the operative clause and the record line contradict each other, the contradiction is written first. If the clause holds an acquittal and the line holds a conviction, the subject is not expiry of a period. The subject is correction of the line that contradicts the clause. The correction is discussed when the two texts are placed side by side. While there is no contradiction, a petition is not treated as having changed the result. The petition is read together with the annexes that show the line in hand and the judgment. If there is no annex, the line is not announced as corrected of itself.
An acquittal is not a conviction. If there is no conviction line, a conviction from which the archive arrangement in Law No. 5352 would run does not arise from that judgment either. The types of reasoning in an acquittal are not opened here. The case file standing at the court does not mean there is a criminal-record conviction to delete. An acquittal in one file does not lift the conviction line in another file. Each judgment carries its own line.
A decision deferring the announcement of the verdict does not enter this table either. Whether that decision will be visible, and to whom, is under a deferred-announcement record. The conditions for building the decision are not written into this distinction. If the judgment is announced later, the announced conviction passes to its own regime. While there is no announcement decision, the deferred-announcement line is not told as if it had been placed in the conviction archive. If there is a decision of discontinuance, discontinuance and the conviction archive are not the same sentence.
Placing a record in the archive does not destroy it
Law No. 5352 builds two layers. The first layer is the conviction information seen on the criminal record. The second layer is this information being placed in the archive when the period and the conditions in the statute are realised. A record placed in the archive does not disappear. The archive is the information passing to another section. Deletion, or non-deletion, of the information in the archive is a separate step. The periods of the two steps are not invented on a single table.
The period is read from the offence in the decision and from the regime in Law No. 5352. The character of the offence in the decision can change the regime. The character is read from the characterisation in the final judgment, not from the first naming in the indictment. If the character later changed on the route of appeal, the regime is looked at again according to the changed character. A period account built with the old character does not take the place of the new character.
For some offences the statute keeps the fate of the archive information apart. Which offence enters this distinction is read from the character in the judgment and from the text of the statute. This article does not build a list of offence names. A conviction that stays outside the distinction and a conviction inside the distinction are not announced as closed with the same sentence. If there is more than one conviction, each line is read with its own character. One line passing into the archive is not counted as having passed the other line too.
Enforcement being complete does not of itself operate the archive step. The date of enforcement can be one of the records looked for in order for the period to run. Whether it is depends on the condition in the statute and on the completion record in the sentence-enforcement file. While there is no record, it is not assumed that enforcement ended and the period expired. A petition as if the period had expired does not create the expiry.
The certificate looking plain does not close the archive
A line not appearing on the criminal-record certificate the person received does not mean the archive record has closed for every authority. The certificate writes the field the statute shows for that requester. The sample requested for starting a job and the archive sample are not the same paper. Who may request the archive information is listed in the statute. The list is not carried into this text before the certificate is seen. A screen image and a sealed certificate are not counted as the same printout either. Which one is in hand is read from the certificate's own heading and date.
A line appearing on the certificate does not mean that line was placed in the archive or taken out of the archive either. Which section the line stands in is read from the inner heading of the certificate. If there is no heading, a section is not assumed. A certificate of an old date may not show a record that was later placed in the archive. A new certificate does not of itself take the place of the old certificate. It is written on which date and with which request it was obtained.
A line belonging to the wrong person is not the subject of the period regime. If the identity information does not match the defendant in the judgment, the subject is correction. The mismatch is seen by comparing the identity record and the record line. The line is not treated as deleted before the comparison is made. Another person's conviction can have stuck to the certificate in hand by similarity of name. The separation is made from the certificate number and the decision reference.
When the line is read, the court, the reference number, the name of the offence in the judgment, the sanction and the record of finality are looked for side by side. If one of these fields is missing on the certificate, the missing field is not treated as completed. If the name of the offence does not match the character in the judgment, the mismatch is written before the period account. If the sanction field says imprisonment, a judicial-fine line is not added as if it had been added to the same judgment. If the record of finality is not on the certificate, the line is not put into the archive account as a final conviction. The account is discussed only when these fields are confirmed with the judgment. Confirmation is made with the certificate's own text, not with the criminal-record office's oral reply.
Work a deletion petition does not carry
Restoration of prohibited rights does not delete the record line. That application is under restoration of prohibited rights. A ban on electing, being elected or a profession is not concluded in this deletion question. If the ban is in the judgment, or in the statute that built that ban, it is discussed with a separate decision. Even if a restoration decision has issued, the place of the conviction line in the archive is read from its own regime. The two decisions are not two sentences of the same petition.
Probation is a form of enforcing the sentence. Continuing the sentence outside an institution does not operate the archive step. The condition of the form is in the article on probation. A call paper coming from the enforcement prosecutor's office is not a deletion notice. The type of sentence, surrender and the authority are read on the paper. That reading is under a call from the enforcement prosecutor's office. Complying with the call does not close the archive record.
Judicial control is a protective measure applied in the investigation or the prosecution. It is not a conviction record. The measure being lifted is not counted as having deleted a conviction that does not exist. The measure is in the article on judicial control. The signing list is not copied into this text. If a conviction line appears on the record while the measure continues, the line may be coming from another final judgment. Which decision it belongs to is read from the reference number on the line.
A request for correction does not take the place of the archive step
If the judgment and the line contradict each other, what is requested is not an announcement that the archive period has expired. What is requested is correction of the contradicting line. A request for correction is not a petition for restoration of a ban either. The request asks whether the reference on the line and the reference in the judgment are the same. If they are not the same, a wrong record is discussed. If they are the same, and the character is the same too, the archive regime is left to the period in the statute. A correction request given before the period expires is not counted as having filled the period. In a file where the period has expired, the request does not of itself operate the expiry either. Whether the step was taken is read from the line of the new certificate. The old certificate is not put in the place of the new step.
Which unit the request will go to is read from the name of the institution on the certificate and from the authority in Law No. 5352. If the institution's name is not on the certificate, the authority is not chosen from this text. The criminal-record unit's writing does not take the place of the court's restoration decision. A court decision is not counted as having of itself corrected a contradicting line either. The correction is seen together with the note that it was entered on the criminal record.
Conclusion
The line to be deleted is first separated as to whether it is a conviction. Placing a record in the archive and the fate of the information in the archive are not the same step. The period is read from the offence in the decision and from the regime in Law No. 5352. The certificate looking plain does not mean the archive has closed for every authority. The framework is on the criminal law page. The basis is the text of Criminal Records Law No. 5352.