Baptism and the “right to be forgotten”: Awaiting the verdict of the European courts

In recent years, church authorities have increasingly received requests from baptized individuals wishing to formalize their decision to leave the Catholic Church. In response to these requests, religious leaders have developed a practice of inserting an annotation in the margin of the baptismal register indicating that the person in question has left the Church.

However, such a solution is not always sufficient for those who wish to express their desire to sever all ties with Catholicism. As a result, on several occasions, religious authorities have been confronted with explicit requests to “delete” all personal data pertaining to the individuals in question from the baptismal register. These requests, based primarily on Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), which enshrines the right to erasure (also known as the “right to be forgotten”), have been systematically rejected by ecclesiastical authorities, who cite the indelible nature of the sacrament of baptism. In accordance with canon law, baptism is the first of the sacraments and may be administered only once to the same person. Once administered, the fact that it took place cannot, from the Church’s perspective, be erased. It should also be noted that the baptismal register is not a list of Church members, but a document intended to record historical facts that actually occurred.

It is from this perspective that refusals to delete baptismal entries have been deemed lawful by various European courts, which have, on several occasions, recognized the Church’s legitimate interest in preserving the integrity of baptismal registers. However, this broad consensus among European jurisdictions regarding the importance of preserving the integrity of baptismal registers is now being tested in an entirely unprecedented way, and on two fronts.

On the one hand, in France, an individual baptized as a child requested that the diocese completely remove his name and personal information from the baptismal register. The diocese refused and proposed, in accordance with its standard practice, to add a marginal annotation. The legality of this refusal was confirmed by the National Commission for Information Technology and Civil Liberties and subsequently by the Council of State, which, in a decision dated February 2, 2024, held that the Church’s interest in retaining a record of the baptism constituted a legitimate and compelling reason that outweighed “the applicant’s moral interest in requesting that this information be permanently deleted.” Having failed to obtain a favorable ruling in the domestic courts, the individual decided, in May 2024, to bring the matter before the European Court of Human Rights (the “ECHR”) by arguing that the protection of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion guaranteed by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the “Convention ” or “ECHR”) implies that the right to the erasure of personal data applies to individuals wishing to leave a religion (the “M.G. v. France” case).

On the other hand, in Belgium, on December 19, 2023, following a request filed by a baptized individual wishing to leave the Catholic Church, the Belgian Data Protection Authority ordered the Diocese of Ghent to completely erase the data contained in a baptismal register. The diocese challenged the Data Protection Authority’s decision before the Brussels Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal decided to stay the proceedings and referred several questions for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU” or “Court of Justice”) regarding the relationship between the right to erasure provided for in Article 17 of the GDPR and the fundamental right to freedom of religion (the “Bisdom Gent” case).

Thus, the future of this litigation—which highlights the growing tension between the “right to be forgotten” and the Church’s religious freedom—now lies in the hands of the two highest European courts. Aware of the major challenges that disputes arising from requests for “de-baptism” pose to the autonomy of churches and religious institutions, on September 4, 2026, the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (“COMECE”) issued a position paper aimed at supporting the arguments put forward in the Bisdom Gent case pending before the CJEU. In the position paper, COMECE emphasizes that, beyond addressing the technical issues surrounding the lawfulness of data processing, the case at stake raises a deeper question: “to what extent may EU data protection law require a Church to change the way in which it gives visible and juridical expression to its faith?”

The first elements of answers to these questions—which touch on the very heart of the Church’s autonomy—are expected to emerge on October 1, 2026, the date on which Advocate General Laila Medina’s Opinion in the Bisdom Gent case is due. While the Court of Justice is not obliged to follow this opinion, the arguments put forward by the Advocate General may have a significant influence on the Court’s reasoning and the final decision. The ruling of the Grand Chamber of the CJEU will, in turn, certainly be taken into consideration by the ECtHR when ruling on the application in M.G. v. France, which is based on the same legal grounds as the Bisdom Gent case. Pending the publication of the first clarifications on the scope of the “right to be forgotten” in the context of the exercise of religious freedom, this study, titled “Baptism and the Right to Erasure of Personal Data: Understanding a European Legal Debate,” aims to shed light on the legal framework applicable to requests for the erasure of baptismal data and to critically evaluate the main arguments at play in European case law.