[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$f-mTouG4wi6-WcQmA22AlArXjpzspQ1kXxSJCdChBBTo":3},{"article":4,"iocs":41},{"id":5,"title":6,"slug":7,"summary":8,"ai_summary":9,"brief":10,"full_text":11,"url":12,"image_url":13,"published_at":14,"ingested_at":15,"relevance_score":16,"entities":17,"category_id":24,"category":25,"article_tags":29},"d2eb42fb-e57a-4167-82a5-cf77b68dc3a3","CJEU - C-12\u002F25","cjeu-c-12-25-66aa99","Created page with \"{{CJEUdecisionBOX |Case_Number_Name=C-12\u002F25 |ECLI= |Opinion_Link=https:\u002F\u002Finfocuria.curia.europa.eu\u002Ftabs\u002Fdocument\u002FC\u002F2025\u002FC-0012-25-00000000RP-01-P-01\u002FCONCL\u002F327439-EN-1-html |Judgement_Link=https:\u002F\u002Finfocuria.curia.europa.eu\u002Ftabs\u002Fdocument\u002FC\u002F2025\u002FC-0012-25-00000000RP-01-P-01\u002FCONCL\u002F327439-EN-1-html |Date_Decided=01.10.2026 |Year=2026 |GDPR_Article_1=Article 17(1)(c) GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 17 GDPR#1c |GDPR_Article_2=Article 17(1)(d) GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_...\" New page {{CJEUdecisionBOX |Case_Number_Name=C-12\u002F25 |ECLI= |Opinion_Link=https:\u002F\u002Finfocuria.curia.europa.eu\u002Ftabs\u002Fdocument\u002FC\u002F2025\u002FC-0012-25-00000000RP-01-P-01\u002FCONCL\u002F327439-EN-1-html |Judgement_Link=https:\u002F\u002Finfocuria.curia.europa.eu\u002Ftabs\u002Fdocument\u002FC\u002F2025\u002FC-0012-25-00000000RP-01-P-01\u002FCONCL\u002F327439-EN-1-html |Date_Decided=01.10.2026 |Year=2026 |GDPR_Article_1=Article 17(1)(c) GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 17 GDPR#1c |GDPR_Article_2=Article 17(1)(d) GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_2=Article 17 GDPR#1d |GDPR_Article_3=Article 4(6) GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_3=Article 4 GDPR#6 |GDPR_Article_4=Article 9(1) GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_4=Article 9 GDPR#1 |GDPR_Article_5=Article 9(2)(d) GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_5=Article 9 GDPR#2d |GDPR_Article_6=Article 6(1)(f) GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_6=Article 6 GDPR#1f |GDPR_Article_7=Article 21(1) GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_7=Article 21 GDPR#1 |GDPR_Article_8=Article 17(3)(d) GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_8=Article 17 GDPR#3d |GDPR_Article_9= |GDPR_Article_Link_9= |GDPR_Article_10= |GDPR_Article_Link_10= |EU_Law_Name_1= |EU_Law_Link_1= |EU_Law_Name_2= |EU_Law_Link_2= |National_Law_Name_1= |National_Law_Link_1= |National_Law_Name_2= |National_Law_Link_2= |Party_Name_1= |Party_Link_1= |Party_Name_2= |Party_Link_2= |Reference_Body= |Reference_Case_Number_Name= |Initial_Contributor=lh | }} According to the Advocate General, a data subject can request the erasure of their personal data from the baptism register under [[Article 17 GDPR|Article 17(1)(c) GDPR]] because of the emotional distress of the data subject to be affiliated with the Church despite their departure from it, unless the Diocese presents overriding legitimate grounds for the processing. ==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 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. 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. === Advocate General Opinion === 1. Filing system 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. 2. Right to erasure under [[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 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 GDPR|Article 9(1) GDPR]], namely data on the religious belief. The conditions of [[Article 9 GDPR|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 GDPR|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 GDPR|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 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. 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 GDPR|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. 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]]. Archiving in the public interest presupposes that the record is accessible to the public or to public authorities. Therefore, if the record is only accessible to persons belonging to the entity in question, the archiving does not serve a public interest. The controller did not confirm that they conduct any historical research. In any case, in order to assess the necessity of processing for historical research, it must be inquired whether historical researchers must be aware of the exact identity of each individual listed in the register in order for the processing to be necessary for the purpose of historical research. 5. Concept of “erasure” The annotation that the data subject has departed from the Church is not an erasure, but, at most, a rectification of the data, according to the Advocate General. Neither is striking through the personal data while leaving the words legible. The controller could, for example, cover the personal data of the data subject with opaque stickers in order to comply with the request to erasure. The data subject cannot request the erasure of all traces from their baptism from the register under [[Article 17 GDPR|Article 17 GDPR]]. The right to erasure only includes the removal of the personal data; information about the baptism of an individual that has taken place at a given place and at a given time can remain in the register. According to the Advocate General, the fact that the register is a unique material carrier and a unique record of historical facts does not call these considerations into question. === Holding === tbd == Comment == ''Share your comments here!'' == Further Resources == ''Share blogs or news articles here!''","The CJEU Advocate General has provided an opinion on a case concerning a data subject's right to erasure of their personal data from a baptismal register under GDPR. The Advocate General opined that the baptismal register constitutes a filing system, making GDPR applicable. The data subject can request erasure under Article 17(1)(c) GDPR due to emotional distress from being affiliated with the Church after leaving it, unless the Diocese demonstrates overriding legitimate grounds for processing. The opinion also clarified the concept of 'erasure' and the applicability of GDPR to religious entities.","CJEU Advocate General rules on data subject's right to erasure from baptismal registers.","Help CJEU - C-12\u002F25: Difference between revisions From GDPRhub Jump to:navigation, search Newer edit →VisualWikitext Revision as of 07:37, 6 October 2026 view source Lh (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators106 edits Tag: Decisions [1.0]Newer edit → (No difference) Revision as of 07:37, 6 October 2026 CJEU - C-12\u002F25 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\u002FName: C-12\u002F25 European Case Law Identifier: Reference from: Language: 24 EU Languages Original Source: AG OpinionJudgement Initial Contributor: lh According to the Advocate General, a data subject can request the erasure of their personal data from the baptism register under Article 17(1)(c) GDPR because of the emotional distress of the data subject to be affiliated with the Church despite their departure from it, unless the Diocese presents overriding legitimate grounds for the processing. Contents 1 English Summary 1.1 Facts 1.2 Advocate General Opinion 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 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. 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. Advocate General Opinion 1. Filing system 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)(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. 3. Right to erasure under Article 17(1)(c) GDPR 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. 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(3)(d) GDPR. Archiving in the public interest presupposes that the record is accessible to the public or to public authorities. Therefore, if the record is only accessible to persons belonging to the entity in question, the archiving does not serve a public interest. The controller did not confirm that they conduct any historical research. In any case, in order to assess the necessity of processing for historical research, it must be inquired whether historical researchers must be aware of the exact identity of each individual listed in the register in order for the processing to be necessary for the purpose of historical research. 5. Concept of “erasure” The annotation that the data subject has departed from the Church is not an erasure, but, at most, a rectification of the data, according to the Advocate General. Neither is striking through the personal data while leaving the words legible. The controller could, for example, cover the personal data of the data subject with opaque stickers in order to comply with the request to erasure. The data subject cannot request the erasure of all traces from their baptism from the register under Article 17 GDPR. The right to erasure only includes the removal of the personal data; information about the baptism of an individual that has taken place at a given place and at a given time can remain in the register. According to the Advocate General, the fact that the register is a unique material carrier and a unique record of historical facts does not call these considerations int","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Findex.php?title=CJEU_-_C-12\u002F25&diff=53293&oldid=0","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Fimages\u002F8\u002F87\u002FCjeulogo.png","2026-10-06T07:37:42+00:00","2026-10-06T08:00:16.446282+00:00",7,[18,21],{"name":19,"type":20},"GDPR","product",{"name":22,"type":23},"Bisdom Gent","vendor","c5c77cdb-f7d7-4990-9436-c81dcbff1163",{"id":24,"icon":26,"name":27,"slug":28},null,"Policy","policy",[30,34,39],{"category":31},{"id":32,"icon":26,"name":19,"slug":33},"3f0f8451-91df-4b6c-9a73-ef3b2509b7f1","gdpr",{"category":35},{"id":36,"icon":26,"name":37,"slug":38},"614132b8-5837-4952-b8b5-c6c9a32a1d85","Privacy","privacy",{"category":40},{"id":24,"icon":26,"name":27,"slug":28},[]]