Overview
International screening covers records held outside the United States, and almost nothing an employer knows about domestic background checks carries over. The sources are different, the legal constraints run in the opposite direction, and the timelines are measured in weeks.
The most consequential difference is philosophical. American screening starts from the premise that court records are public and an employer may look. Much of the rest of the world starts from the premise that criminal history is private and an employer may not, unless a specific law says otherwise for that specific role.
Throughout this page, “screening company” refers to the outside firm an employer hires to run the check. In the law it is called a consumer reporting agency, or CRA.
Why It Works Differently
- No public court index. Most countries have no equivalent of a county courthouse where anyone may search criminal filings by name.
- Records sit with police or ministries, not courts, and those bodies answer to the individual rather than to employers.
- Data protection law is the starting point rather than an afterthought, and in the European Union it treats criminal data as a category apart.
- Documents need authenticating. A degree certificate from another country may need formal certification before anyone will treat it as genuine.
- Language, time zones, and public holidays turn a same day task into a multi week one.
Criminal Records Abroad
In most countries an employer cannot obtain someone’s criminal record at all. Only the individual can. The person applies to the national police or justice ministry, receives a certificate, and hands it to the employer. That means the check depends on the candidate’s cooperation, and the employer receives a document rather than a search result.
These certificates go by many names. Police certificate, certificate of good conduct, criminal record extract, and in the United Kingdom a disclosure from the national disclosure service. What they contain varies enormously.
- Some show only unspent convictions, with older matters dropping off automatically under a rehabilitation scheme.
- Some show nothing but a statement that the person has no record, with no detail either way.
- Some are tiered, with a basic version for general employment and a fuller version available only for roles working with children or vulnerable adults.
- Some are unavailable to non-residents or to people who have left the country, which strands candidates who moved.
Several countries restrict criminal history checks to specified occupations and prohibit them elsewhere. Spent conviction schemes are common and their waiting periods differ, so a conviction disclosable in one country is legally invisible in the next.
The GDPR Problem
US employers expanding into Europe usually assume that a signed authorization solves the legal question, because that is how it works at home. It does not, and this is the single most expensive misunderstanding in international screening.
Criminal Data Has Its Own Rule
Under the GDPR, personal data about criminal convictions and offenses may only be processed under the control of an official authority, or where authorized by European Union or member state law. An ordinary employer needs a specific legal authorization to touch it, and that authorization has to exist in national law for that purpose.
This reaches further than people expect. A certificate confirming that someone has no criminal record is still criminal conviction data, because the absence of a record is information about criminal history.
Consent Does Not Fix It
In the employment context, consent is generally not a valid legal basis. European data protection guidance treats the relationship between employer and worker as carrying a clear imbalance of power, which means consent cannot be considered freely given. A candidate who signs an authorization has not made the processing lawful, because they were never in a position to refuse.
Regulators have enforced exactly this. A Spanish authority fined a company 2 million euros for collecting criminal record certificates from job applicants, despite the applicants having consented, because Spanish law contained no authorization for the practice. French and Italian regulators have penalized employers on the same reasoning. The consent was real. It was also irrelevant.
The practical consequence for a US employer is that a criminal check that is routine in Ohio may be simply unlawful for the same role in Madrid, regardless of what the candidate signs.
Moving Data Across Borders
Obtaining the data lawfully is only half the problem. Sending it to the United States is a separate question with its own rules.
Transfers of personal data out of the European Economic Area require a recognized mechanism. The most widely used are standard contractual clauses, which are model terms the European Commission has approved, incorporated into the agreement between the parties. A framework also exists permitting transfers to certified US organizations.
Two cautions matter. Participating in that framework does not remove the underlying obligations, so an employer still needs a lawful basis to process the data, still owes transparency, and still has to honor individual rights. And this area has been rebuilt twice after legal challenges, so any transfer arrangement is worth re-checking rather than assumed to be settled.
Education and Employment Abroad
Non-criminal verification is less legally fraught and more logistically difficult.
Education means contacting the institution directly, in its language, under its country’s privacy rules. There is no equivalent of the American clearinghouse that covers most universities at once. Some countries route all verification through a government ministry. Some require a signed release from the graduate before a school will respond at all. Two services frequently appear alongside verification and are not the same thing:
- Credential evaluation translates a foreign qualification into its American equivalent. It is an opinion about comparability, not proof the degree exists.
- Apostille or authentication certifies that a document is genuine for use in another country. It validates the paper, not the coursework.
Employment verification abroad runs into the same wall as at home, made higher. There is no payroll database to query, the former employer has no obligation to respond to a foreign request, and in some countries privacy law limits what they may confirm even if willing.
Our education verification and employment history pages cover how these work domestically.
Timing and What It Costs You
Plan for weeks. A domestic check that clears in 3 days routinely takes 3 to 6 weeks internationally, and longer in some jurisdictions.
The delays are structural rather than avoidable:
- The candidate has to request the certificate themselves and wait for the issuing authority
- Some authorities require an in person appearance, a notarized request, or fingerprints
- Documents may need translating, and translations may need certifying
- National holidays and summer closures differ from the American calendar
- Fees are frequently paid by the candidate to a government body, and reimbursement takes its own time
The scheduling implication is the one employers miss. If the international check is started at the same point in the process as the domestic ones, the start date slips by a month. Sensible programs begin the international components as early as the law allows and run everything else alongside.
U.S. Law Still Applies
A US employer does not escape American obligations by sourcing a record abroad.
Where a screening company supplies the information for an employment decision, the result is a consumer report regardless of which country the underlying record came from. Disclosure and authorization are required, accuracy obligations apply, and the adverse action process applies before any rejection based on it.
Discrimination law applies too, and international screening carries a specific exposure. Applying a check to candidates with foreign work history and not to others is a practice that correlates closely with national origin. If the policy is that anyone who has lived abroad gets an international check, that has to be genuinely applied to everyone, including US citizens returning from overseas assignments.
The Rules Employers Must Follow
Three rules apply. Each has its own page on this site, so this is the summary.
Check Whether You Are Allowed Before You Ask
In much of the world the question is not whether the candidate agrees but whether national law permits the check for that role. Consent does not create permission where the law does not already provide it.
Get Written Permission First
Where a screening company supplies the report, the employer must give a standalone written disclosure and obtain written authorization under U.S. law, on top of whatever the foreign jurisdiction requires. See our FCRA overview.
Follow the Steps Before Rejecting Someone
If the international result is going to cost the candidate the job, the employer must send a preliminary notice with a copy of the report, allow time to respond or correct an error, and only then issue the final decision. Translation errors and unfamiliar document formats make this step more valuable here, not less. See the adverse action process.
For Applicants
- Start early. If you have lived abroad, request your police certificate as soon as you begin applying. It is the longest lead item in any background check and only you can order it.
- Ask whether you can still get one. Some countries will not issue a certificate to someone who no longer lives there, or require a consulate to handle it. Find out before an employer is waiting.
- Keep a certified translation. If your documents are not in English, a certified translation saves repeating the exercise for every employer.
- Understand what your certificate shows. Some list only unspent convictions and some show nothing at all beyond a statement. Knowing which yours is prevents a misunderstanding about what was disclosed.
- An empty result is normal. If you lived somewhere briefly, or in a country with limited records, a check may return nothing. That is not a finding against you.
- If the report is wrong, dispute it. U.S. law gives you that right even where the record came from abroad. Our guide to disputing a background check covers the process.
Best Practices
- Confirm the check is lawful in the country concerned before adding it to the package
- Never treat a signed authorization as the answer to a foreign legal question
- Start international components first, since they set the timeline for the whole check
- Tell candidates in advance what they will need to request and how long it takes
- Apply the policy by where someone lived, not by where they appear to be from
- Confirm your transfer mechanism is current rather than assuming a past arrangement still holds
- Budget for translation and authentication, and decide in advance who pays
- Treat an empty international result as a limit of the record, not as a finding