New questions referred to the CJEU on the right to be forgotten

Here is an English version of the questions referred yesterday to the CJEU on the right to erasure or “right to be forgotten” in a case about a request for removal from a baptism register – an interesting balance of fundamental rights.

The case, an appeal against a decision by the Belgian Data Protection Authority ordering removal of data from a baptism register, will lead the CJEU to examine the following questions:
[Not yet an official EN version – this is my translation of the questions, with some abbreviations]

a) Must Art. 17 GDPR, read in conjunction with the right to the protection of personal data [Art. 8 EU Charter], the freedom of thought, conscience and religion [Art. 10 EU Charter / Art. 9 ECHR] and the principle of separation of Church and State [Art. 19 & 21 Belgian Constitution], be interpreted as meaning that a person who was baptised as a minor and who as an adult wishes to distance himself from the Roman-Catholic Church does or does not have a right to erasure of his personal data from the baptism register?

b) Is there any difference to be made for the application of Art. 17(1)(c) GDPR as a result of the fact that, according to the controller, the recording in the baptism register touches the aforementioned fundamental rights (freedom of religion) of the controller and the Roman-Catholic church community that it represents?

c) Is there any difference to be made as a result of the fact that this baptism register is not digital but a unique material medium in the form of a book with two-sided pages whereby the data of other data subjects also appears on the other side of pages?

d) Is there any difference to be made as a result of the fact that the book itself is a historical artifact and that the baptism register is a unique representation of historical facts that are not recorded anywhere else, as a result of which the data processing also occurs with a view to archiving in the public interest, scientific or historical research or statistical purposes within the meaning of Art. 17(3)(d) GDPR?

e) To the extent that a right to erasure might exist within the meaning of Art. 17(1) GDPR and to the extent that no exception to this right would apply within the meaning of Art. 17(3) GDPR, can the annotation in the margin of the baptism register indicating that a person has left the Church enable compliance by equivalence with the right to erasure?

[Honestly, I’m intrigued at how the CJEU will translate these questions, because the wording in Dutch isn’t that easy to translate properly]

If you fancy reading the judgment of 11 December 2024 of the Belgian Market Court that referred those questions to the CJEU, here is the link – judgment in Dutch only:
https://lnkd.in/eZpCts4B

data protection privacy