CJEU - C-12/25

Summary

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is considering a case regarding an individual's right to have their personal data erased from a baptismal register under GDPR. The Advocate General opined that a baptismal register constitutes a filing system, making GDPR applicable. The Advocate General also clarified that merely annotating or striking through data is not sufficient erasure, and suggested using opaque stickers as a potential method for compliance.

Full text

Help CJEU - C-12/25: Difference between revisions From GDPRhub Jump to:navigation, search ← Older editVisualWikitext Revision as of 14:20, 6 October 2026 view sourceLh (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators109 editsmTag: Visual edit← Older edit Latest revision as of 15:22, 6 October 2026 view source Lh (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators109 editsmTag: Visual edit (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)Line 91: Line 91: The data subject was baptised as a minor. The name, date and place of birth and place of baptism were recorded in the baptismal register with the Bisdom Gent (Diocese of Ghent, controller). The baptismal register is a physical book that indicates the date of birth and the place of baptism. It is kept in a safeguarded storage (for example in a locked safe or dedicated room) that only a limited amount of persons affiliated with the Diocese have access to.The data subject was baptised as a minor. The name, date and place of birth and place of baptism were recorded in the baptismal register with the Bisdom Gent (Diocese of Ghent, controller). The baptismal register is a physical book that indicates the date of birth and the place of baptism. It is kept in a safeguarded storage (for example in a locked safe or dedicated room) that only a limited amount of persons affiliated with the Diocese have access to. After the data subject departed from the Church, they requested the controller to erase their personal data from the registry. The controller recorded the departure of the data subject from the church with an annotation in the baptismal register. Upon the request, the controller stroke through the personal data of the data subject from the registry, however, it remained legible.After the data subject departed from the Church, they requested the controller to erase their personal data from the register. The controller recorded the departure of the data subject from the church with an annotation in the baptismal register. Upon the request, the controller stroke through the personal data of the data subject from the registry, however, it remained legible. The data subject complained with the DPA. The DPA found an infringement of the GDPR. The controller appealed the decision with the Court of Appeal of Brussels. The data subject complained with the DPA. The DPA found an infringement of the GDPR. The controller appealed the decision with the Court of Appeal of Brussels. The Court of Appeal, having doubts about the interpretation of the GDPR, referred the question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling whether an individual who was baptised as a minor and who, as an adult, wishes to dissociate themselves from the religious community in question, has the right to have their personal data erased from the baptismal register. The referring court also wishes to know whether the mere annotation, in the margin of the baptismal register, that a person has left the religious community constitutes ‘erasure’ within the meaning of Article 17(1) and (3) of the GDPR. === Advocate General Opinion ====== Advocate General Opinion === The Advocate General structured the opinion under the aspects of applicability of the GDPR, right to erasure, archiving in the public interest or historical research, and the concept of "erasure". # Filing system==== 1. Applicability of the GDPR ==== Firstly, according to the Advocate General Medina, the baptismal register is to be considered a filing system under [[Article 4 GDPR|Article 4(6) GDPR]]. Therefore, the GDPR is applicable despite the manual processing of the data. The personal data in the register is arranged according to a particular logic and the information therein can be easily retrieved. The register is structured on the basis of a geographical criterion (the location of the parish) and a chronological criterion (the date of celebration). It is immaterial that the criteria employed to structure the filing system do not directly concern the data subjects who were baptised. Neither is it relevant that the register is only available to a limited number of persons. Firstly, according to the Advocate General Medina, the baptismal register is to be considered a filing system under [[Article 4 GDPR|Article 4(6) GDPR]]. Therefore, the GDPR is applicable despite the manual processing of the data. The personal data in the register is arranged according to a particular logic and the information therein can be easily retrieved. The register is structured on the basis of a geographical criterion (the location of the parish) and a chronological criterion (the date of celebration). It is immaterial that the criteria employed to structure the filing system do not directly concern the data subjects who were baptised. Neither is it relevant that the register is only available to a limited number of persons. The Advocate General clarified that the GDPR is also applicable in its personal scope to entities such as churches or religious communities. The Advocate General clarified that the GDPR is also applicable in its personal scope to entities such as churches or religious communities. 2. Right to erasure under [[Article 17 GDPR|Article 17(1)(d) GDPR]]==== 2. Right to erasure under [[Article 17 GDPR|Article 17(1)(c) GDPR]] and [[Article 17 GDPR|Article 17(1)(d) GDPR]] ==== The data subject can request the erasure of their personal data under [[Article 17 GDPR|Article 17(1)(d) GDPR]] when the processing was unlawful.The data subject can request the erasure of their personal data under [[Article 17 GDPR|Article 17(1)(d) GDPR]] when the processing was unlawful. Line 120: Line 115: According to the Advocate General, whether the processing could be based on [[Article 6 GDPR|Article 6(1)(f) GDPR]] is ultimately for the referring court to decide. In case of the affirmative, the data subject could not request the erasure pursuant to [[Article 17 GDPR|Article 17(1)(d) GDPR]] before the controller was informed about the data subject’s objection to the processing.According to the Advocate General, whether the processing could be based on [[Article 6 GDPR|Article 6(1)(f) GDPR]] is ultimately for the referring court to decide. In case of the affirmative, the data subject could not request the erasure pursuant to [[Article 17 GDPR|Article 17(1)(d) GDPR]] before the controller was informed about the data subject’s objection to the processing. 3. Right to erasure under [[Article 17 GDPR|Article 17(1)(c) GDPR]] Pursuant to [[Article 17 GDPR|Article 17(1)(c) GDPR]], the data subject has a right to erasure when the data subject objects to the processing under [[Article 21 GDPR|Article 21(1) GDPR]] and there are no overriding compelling legitimate grounds for the processing that the controller can rely on.Pursuant to [[Article 17 GDPR|Article 17(1)(c) GDPR]], the data subject has a right to erasure when the data subject objects to the processing under [[Article 21 GDPR|Article 21(1) GDPR]] and there are no overriding compelling legitimate grounds for the processing that the controller can rely on. Line 132: Line 124: Unless the controller can present compelling grounds that override the data subject’s interest, the data must be erased.Unless the controller can present compelling grounds that override the data subject’s interest, the data must be erased. ==== 3. Archiving in the public interest and historical research ==== 4. Archiving in the public interest and historical research The right to erasure does not apply when the processing is necessary for archiving purposes in the public interest, or historical research pursuant to [[Article 17 GDPR|Article 17(3)(d) GDPR]]. The right to erasure does not apply when the processing is necessary for archiving purposes in the public interest, or historical research pursuant to [[Article 17 GDPR|Article 17(3)(d) GDPR]]. Line 141: Line 131: The controller did not confirm that they conduct

Entities