EU court adviser says striking out legible records is not GDPR erasure

EU court adviser says striking out legible records is not GDPR erasure

1 October 2026: An Advocate General at the EU Court of Justice has advised that crossing out a person's details in a register while leaving them readable, and adding a note, does not count as erasure under the GDPR. Laila Medina gave the opinion in Case C-12/25, Bisdom Gent, a dispute over the baptismal register of the Diocese of Ghent.

A Belgian man, baptised as a child, asked the diocese to delete every reference to him from its registers and archives. The diocese struck through his data but kept it legible and recorded his departure from the Church. He complained to Belgium's data protection authority, which ordered erasure, and the diocese challenged that order in a Belgian court, which referred questions to Luxembourg.

Medina first finds that the GDPR applies, because a baptismal register is a structured set of personal data and so a filing system under the regulation. The autonomy of churches does not change that. She considers that the church's processing before the withdrawal request could be lawful even without consent, but that the person may, in principle, ask for erasure by formally objecting.

The church may then keep the data only if it shows compelling legitimate grounds. Administering the sacraments can be one, but it must still be necessary and must outweigh the individual's rights, which is a case-by-case judgment for the national court. If it fails, the church might still rely on archiving in the public interest or historical research, under conditions the opinion sets out.

On method, the opinion says that data must be made illegible to the extent needed so the person is no longer identified or easily identifiable, while the fact that a baptism took place at a given place and time may stay. Pages need not be physically removed. The court's press release records her view that "only a genuine reconciliation of the interests involved can ensure a fair outcome for those concerned".

The Court of Justice is not bound by the opinion and will give judgment at a later date. Any organisation that keeps membership or event registers, and answers erasure requests by annotating or striking through entries, would find this opinion relevant if the Court follows it.

Sources

• Court of Justice of the EU: Press release 139/26, Opinion of Advocate General Medina in Case C-12/25, Bisdom Gent, 1 October 2026
• Data Protection Commissioner Malta: Advocate General, GDPR erasure right may apply to baptismal registers, 5 October 2026