According to the BE DPA, a baptized person has the right to be deleted from the baptismal register

---

Background of the case

A baptized person applied to the diocese of Ghent to be deleted from all Catholic Church files, including the baptismal register. However, the Church does not delete the data from the baptismal registers, but rather adds an annotation reflecting the person's wish to leave the Church in the margin of the register.

The right to data deletion, enshrined in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), is not absolute and can only be exercised under certain conditions. The Catholic Church considers that it has a legitimate interest in retaining the data contained in the baptism register, as such retention is necessary for the purpose of data processing, and that the conditions applicable to a request for deletion are therefore not met in this type of case. She also invoked the archival value of this data, which would prevent its deletion.

The unsuccessful party then lodged a complaint with the Data Protection Authority.

The Church's interest and the data subject's interest

The Church's legal basis for processing baptism data is its legitimate interest in preventing possible (identity) fraud, since, according to Catholic doctrine, a baptism can only take place once. It is therefore necessary to keep a record of it.

For the Belgian DPA, this is indeed a legitimate interest on the part of the Church.

However, this legitimate interest can only be validly invoked as a basis for data processing if the processing is necessary to achieve this objective, and if the interest of the data subject (here: the complainant) does not override the interest of the organization processing the data (here: the diocese of Ghent).

In the present case, the DPA finds that these two conditions are not met:

• On the one hand, since the register is only kept in paper form within a single parish (that of the baptism), it is not always possible to verify whether or not the baptism took place. Data processing as it is carried out today does not in fact prevent a person from receiving the same sacrament twice, and is therefore not a priori appropriate for achieving the desired purpose.
• On the other hand, the lifetime retention of all the complainant's data - including data not strictly necessary to determine whether a person has already been baptized - is disproportionate from the moment the complainant expressly states that he or she wishes to distance himself or herself from the Catholic Church. In this case, the interests of the complainant override those of the Church.

Consequently, the data processing in question is deemed unlawful, which means that the complainant can exercise his right to have the data deleted. Moreover, data must also be deleted when a legitimate objection to data processing is raised, which is therefore the case here.

Furthermore, the DPA considers that the information provided by the Church regarding the processing of baptismal data is not sufficient, in particular because it does not include any indication to the person (or his/her parents) as to how long the data will be kept.

Order to comply with erasure request

For this reason, the DPA decided to order the Bishopric of Ghent to comply with the complainant's request to object to the processing of his data, and with the request to erase his data.

Hielke Hijmans, Chairman of the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority: "In this case, several fundamental rights are at stake. In our decision, we only express ourselves on the application of the GDPR to the data processing carried out by the diocese of Ghent, as is our role. From a data protection point of view, the lifelong processing of data, moreover of a sensitive nature, of a person who has asked to leave the Church cannot be justified if such processing is neither proportional nor strictly necessary to the admittedly legitimate interests of the Church. These conditions were not met in this case".

Parties affected by the decision have 30 days in which to lodge an appeal.

Important note: several cases concerning the data protection aspects of the de-baptization procedure are currently before the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority. The decision summarized in this press release concerns only one of these cases.

Update 11 december 2024 : The Market Court refers preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the EU

The Market Court decided today to refer preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union in the appeal that the diocese of Ghent had filed against decision 169/2023 of the Belgian Data Protection Authority (BE DPA).

Given, on the one hand, that different European authorities have rendered divergent decisions on a similar subject and, on the other hand, that the question of erasure from the baptismal register is part of a broader social context than just the proceedings at hand, the Market Court decided to ask the CJEU whether, in summary, the right to freedom of religion and the right to data protection and data erasure are absolute and what criteria are pertinent to consider in the event of a conflict between these fundamental rights.

More specifically, the Market Court asked 5 preliminary questions, which are summarised below:

• Does a person who was baptised as a minor and wants to disassociate from the church as an adult have the right to have his/her data erased from the baptismal register?
• Does it make a difference that, according to the data controller, the data erasure affects his fundamental rights (freedom of religion)?
• Does it make a difference that the baptismal register is not digital but takes the form of a book?
• Does it make a difference that the baptismal register itself is a historical artefact so that the data processing is also done for archival purposes?
• To the extent that a person has the right to request the erasure of his/her data from the baptismal register and no exception to that right is applicable, can an annotation that a person has left the church in the margin of the baptismal register be considered equivalent to a data erasure within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation?

The judgment and the precise questions presented to the CJEU can be accessed via this link (in Dutch).

Hielke Hijmans, Chairman of the Litigation Chamber of the BE DPA : “This is a very nice judgment for the BE DPA that follows our analysis on a large number of points and puts the fundamental question of the balance between data protection and freedom of religion before the highest European court.”

Update 1 October 2026: Advocate General of the CJEU delivers Opinion in the case “BE DPA v Diocese of Ghent”

On 1 October 2026, Advocate General Medina delivered her Opinion in the case between the Belgian Data Protection Authority (BE DPA) and the Diocese of Ghent.

In her Opinion, the Advocate General follows the BE DPA’s interpretation on several points: in principle, the right to erasure may apply to personal data contained in baptismal registers.

The Advocate General confirms that the GDPR does indeed apply to this case, meaning that the processing of the personal data concerned must comply with the GDPR. She adds that, in principle, a data subject may request the erasure of their data from the baptismal register by formally objecting to the processing of those data.

In such a case, the Church may continue to process the data only if it demonstrates compelling legitimate grounds for doing so. The proper administration of the sacraments may constitute such a ground, provided that the intended processing is necessary to achieve the purpose pursued.

The Advocate General therefore considers that a case-by-case balancing exercise must be carried out between the institutional autonomy of the Church and the rights of the person requesting the erasure of their data. This assessment should take into account, among other things, the reasons underlying the request for erasure and the consequences of refusing the request for the data subject. The Advocate General points out that “the continued retention of personal data by a religious community from which a person wishes to distance themselves may undermine that person’s right to self-determination and, in certain circumstances, cause emotional harm”.

The Advocate General further notes that the Church may rely on the necessity of processing data for archiving purposes or for historical research only under certain conditions, and that it is for the national court to assess whether those conditions are met. Among other things, archiving must serve the interests of society as a whole.

Finally, if the right to erasure were found to apply in this particular case, Advocate General Medina considers that “the data must be rendered illegible so that the data subject can no longer be identified or is not easily identifiable”. This is consistent with the BE DPA’s interpretation, as set out in its decision 169/2023, according to which simply adding a note indicating the data subject’s wish to leave the Church was not sufficient.

Koen Gorissen, Chair of the BE DPA: “I welcome the Advocate General’s Opinion, which I consider very positive for the rights of data subjects. In my view, the attention paid to the right to self-determination is particularly important: where a person considers that the processing of their personal data in a baptismal register may have emotional consequences for them, the Church must take this into account when balancing the rights and interests at stake.”

The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. The case still has to be examined by the CJEU. The CJEU is expected to rule on the case within the coming months.