A Belgian national who had been baptised as a Catholic as a child asked the Diocese of Ghent to delete any reference to him from all physical or digital register or archive. He relied on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The Diocese subsequently recorded his departure from the Church, striking through but keeping his personal data in a legible form. Dissatisfied with this approach, he lodged a complaint with the Belgian Data Protection Authority, which ordered the Diocese to erase his personal data.

The Diocese challenged that decision before a Belgian court, which, in turn, sought an interpretation of the GDPR from the Court of Justice in this context.

In the Opinion issued on 01 October 2026, European Court of Justice Advocate General Laila Medina confirmed, first, that the GDPR applies to the case. The baptismal register contains a ‘structured’ set of personal data of the baptised individuals and, hence, constitutes filing systems within the meaning of that Regulation. The autonomy of churches and religious organisations does not call this conclusion into question. Consequently, the data processing in question – its storage and, where appropriate, retrieval and use – must be in line with the GDPR.

Second, the Advocate General considers that the processing of the complainant’s personal data by the Church – prior the submission of the withdrawal request from the Church – could be regarded as lawful under the GDPR, even absent express consent by the person in question. Nevertheless, that person may, in principle, request the erasure of those data from the baptismal register by formally objecting to the processing.

In that case, the Church may continue to process the data only if it demonstrates compelling legitimate grounds for doing so. Although ensuring the correct administration of the sacraments, including baptism, can be regarded as such a ground, it must still be assessed whether the processing is necessary to pursue that objective, and whether the Church’s interest takes precedence over the rights and freedoms of the person concerned.

It is for the national court to make that complex case-by-case assessment. In balancing the interests at stake, the national court should weigh up two sets of competing interests and rights that are, in the EU legal order, both considered worthy of significant protection: on the one hand, the complainant’s right to respect for private and family life, his right to protection of personal data, and his freedom of thought, conscience and religion; on the other hand, the autonomy of the Church and its freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Read more here