TL;DR
On 1 October 2026 Advocate General Laila Medina delivered her Opinion in Case C-12/25, Bisdom Gent. Three points: the baptismal register, even on paper, is a 'filing system' under Article 4(6), so the GDPR applies; a baptised person can seek erasure by objecting to the processing (Articles 21(1) and 17(1)(c)), and the Church may continue only on compelling legitimate grounds; where erasure is due, crossing out while leaving the data legible is not enough. The Opinion does not bind the Court: the judgment will follow later.
The case
A Belgian national, baptised Catholic as a child, asked the Diocese of Ghent to remove every reference to him from all physical and digital registers and archives. The Diocese recorded his departure from the Church and crossed out his data, but left it legible. The Belgian data protection authority ordered erasure; the Diocese challenged the decision and the Belgian court asked the Court of Justice how to interpret the GDPR.
What the Advocate General proposes
- THE GDPR APPLIES. The register holds a structured set of data (name, date and place of birth, family ties, religious beliefs): it is a filing system. Church autonomy does not change that conclusion.
- LAWFUL PROCESSING, UNTIL THE OBJECTION. Before the request, the processing may be lawful on the basis of legitimate interests (Article 6(1)(f)), even without express consent.
- OBJECTION AND COMPELLING GROUNDS. After the objection, the Church may continue only if it demonstrates compelling legitimate grounds. The proper administration of the sacraments may qualify, but the processing must be necessary and must override the person's rights.
- A CONCRETE BALANCE. The national court strikes it case by case: the person's private life, data protection and freedom of conscience on one side; the Church's autonomy and religious freedom on the other. The reasons for the request and the effect of a refusal matter.
- ARCHIVING AND HISTORICAL RESEARCH. Without compelling grounds, retention is possible for archiving in the public interest or historical research (Articles 17(3)(d) and 89(1)), but only under strict conditions and in line with data minimisation.
Crossing out is not erasure
Where erasure is due, a crossing-out that leaves the data legible, with a note of the departure from the Church, is not erasure under the GDPR. The data must be made illegible to the extent needed for the person to be no longer identified or easily identifiable. Pages need not be torn out: the data can be concealed while keeping the fact that a baptism took place at a given place and time.
Why it matters beyond religious bodies
Three lessons on archives
One: a paper register ordered by name or date is a GDPR filing system, with all that follows (records of processing, retention, rights). Two: 'we cannot erase, we would falsify history' is not a sufficient argument; a documented balance with concrete reasons is required. Three: where erasure is due but the medium cannot be destroyed, concealment is an acceptable measure; a margin note is not. This applies to the historical archives of municipalities, schools, professional bodies and associations.
An Advocate General's Opinion proposes a solution, it does not impose one: the judges now begin their deliberations. The Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the EU (COMECE) has expressed strong concern about the thesis. Until the judgment, anyone handling similar requests should document the balance and take neither refusal nor full erasure for granted.
Looking for a workspace for your DPO work?
DPO Workspace is built by a certified DPO. 30-day free trial.
Start free
