CJEU - C-12/25

Summary

The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has opined that individuals can request the erasure of their name from baptism registers. This right is applicable unless the Diocese can demonstrate overriding legitimate grounds for processing or if the processing is necessary for archiving or historical research purposes. The case involves a data subject who, after leaving the church, requested their data be removed from a baptismal register, leading to a dispute over the interpretation of GDPR's erasure provisions.

Full text

Help CJEU - C-12/25: Difference between revisions From GDPRhub Jump to:navigation, search ← Older editVisualWikitext Revision as of 15:22, 6 October 2026 view sourceLh (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators109 editsmTag: Visual edit← Older edit Latest revision as of 12:19, 7 October 2026 view source Sfl (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators606 editsm Tag: Visual edit Line 1: Line 1: The Advocate General opined that a data subject can request the erasure of their name from the baptism register unless the Diocese demonstrates overriding legitimate grounds for the processing or the processing is necessary for archiving or historical research purposes.{{CJEUdecisionBOXThe Advocate General opined that a data subject can request the erasure of their name from the baptism register, unless the Diocese demonstrates overriding legitimate grounds for the processing or the processing is necessary for archiving or historical research purposes.{{CJEUdecisionBOX |Case_Number_Name=C-12/25 |Case_Number_Name=C-12/25 Latest revision as of 12:19, 7 October 2026 The Advocate General opined that a data subject can request the erasure of their name from the baptism register, unless the Diocese demonstrates overriding legitimate grounds for the processing or the processing is necessary for archiving or historical research purposes. CJEU - C-12/25 Court: CJEU Jurisdiction: European Union Relevant Law: Article 17(1)(c) GDPR Article 17(1)(d) GDPR Article 4(6) GDPR Article 9(1) GDPR Article 9(2)(d) GDPR Article 6(1)(f) GDPR Article 21(1) GDPR Article 17(3)(d) GDPR Decided: 01.10.2026 Parties: Case Number/Name: C-12/25 European Case Law Identifier: Reference from: Language: 24 EU Languages Original Source: AG OpinionJudgement Initial Contributor: lh Contents 1 English Summary 1.1 Facts 1.2 Advocate General Opinion 1.2.1 1. Applicability of the GDPR 1.2.2 2. Right to erasure under Article 17(1)(c) GDPR and Article 17(1)(d) GDPR 1.2.3 3. Archiving in the public interest and historical research 1.2.4 4. Concept of “erasure” 1.2.5 5. Conclusion 1.3 Holding 2 Comment 3 Further Resources English Summary Facts 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 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 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 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". 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(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. 2. Right to erasure under Article 17(1)(c) GDPR and Article 17(1)(d) GDPR The data subject can request the erasure of their personal data under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR when the processing was unlawful. The processing of the data subject’s personal data in the baptismal register is to be considered special categories of personal data pursuant to Article 9(1) GDPR, namely data on the religious belief. The conditions of Article 9(2)(d) GDPR are met because the data is processed by a religious entity and the register is safeguarded. Moreover, the controller can rely on the legal basis of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR for the processing of the data because the controller pursues the interest of ensuring a proper administration of the sacraments. It is necessary to keep a record of all baptisms in order to prevent believers from being baptised twice. The sacraments are of utmost importance to the Church. When balancing the interest of the controller with the rights and interests of the data subject under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, the Advocate General took into account the fact that the data subject was unable to consent to the data processing because they were a child at the time of the baptism. On the other hand, the Advocate General considered that only a limited number of people have access to the register, which is a mitigating factor. Moreover, the register also serves the interests of individuals who need to provide proof of their baptism in order to receive other sacraments such as religious marriage. According to the Advocate General, whether the processing could be based on 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(1)(d) GDPR before the controller was informed about the data subject’s objection to the processing. Pursuant to Article 17(1)(c) GDPR, the data subject has a right to erasure when the data subject objects to the processing under Article 21(1) GDPR and there are no overriding compelling legitimate grounds for the processing that the controller can rely on. The correct administration of sacraments can be considered a compelling legitimate ground. However, it is for the national court do decide whether the processing is necessary in order to ensure the correct administration of the sacraments. It must be considered that the data subject can provide other means of evidence proving the fact that he has been baptised in the past, such as the correspondence with the parish. As far as the balancing of interests pursuant to Article 17(1)(c) GDPR is concerned, the Advocate General argued that the emotional distress of the data subject to be perceived as belonging to a religious community with which they are not associated must be considered. The processing of the data in the register in perpetuity negatively affects the data subject’s right to self-determination. Unless the controller can present compelling grounds that override the data subject’s interest, the data must be erased. 3. Archiving in the p

Entities