Article 91 GDPR: Difference between revisions

From GDPRhub
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 201: Line 201:
Religious organisations usually process large quantities of personal data relating to their members, for example religious or philosophical beliefs, which are considered  special categories of personal data pursuant to [[Article 9 GDPR]]. As a consequence, ensuring that they comply with data protection law is essential to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects who are (or were) members of such organisations. For historical reasons, however, specific religious organisations may benefit from a particular status in some Member States, which allows them to apply and adopt their own set of binding rules, distinct from national law. For example, as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, some Member States allow for canon law to apply instead of national law for matters falling within the competences of the church. Article 91 GDPR takes this reality into account by allowing, under certain circumstances, churches and religious associations or communities to be subject to their own set of data protection rules, distinct from the GDPR. This derogation is however subject to stringent conditions, as further detailed below. By implication, churches and religious associations or communities that do not meet these conditions remain bound by the GDPR in its entirety.<ref>Giovanni Buttarelli (EDPS), ''Personal Data Protection in churches and religious organisation:'' ''Speech to a Conference organised by the Polish Inspector for Personal Data Protection, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University of Warsaw, Opole University and the University of Szczecin'', Warsaw, 25 February 2016 (available [https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/16-02-25_personal_data_protection_church_warsaw_en.pdf. here]) (accessed 14 March 2022). </ref>  
Religious organisations usually process large quantities of personal data relating to their members, for example religious or philosophical beliefs, which are considered  special categories of personal data pursuant to [[Article 9 GDPR]]. As a consequence, ensuring that they comply with data protection law is essential to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects who are (or were) members of such organisations. For historical reasons, however, specific religious organisations may benefit from a particular status in some Member States, which allows them to apply and adopt their own set of binding rules, distinct from national law. For example, as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, some Member States allow for canon law to apply instead of national law for matters falling within the competences of the church. Article 91 GDPR takes this reality into account by allowing, under certain circumstances, churches and religious associations or communities to be subject to their own set of data protection rules, distinct from the GDPR. This derogation is however subject to stringent conditions, as further detailed below. By implication, churches and religious associations or communities that do not meet these conditions remain bound by the GDPR in its entirety.<ref>Giovanni Buttarelli (EDPS), ''Personal Data Protection in churches and religious organisation:'' ''Speech to a Conference organised by the Polish Inspector for Personal Data Protection, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University of Warsaw, Opole University and the University of Szczecin'', Warsaw, 25 February 2016 (available [https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/16-02-25_personal_data_protection_church_warsaw_en.pdf. here]) (accessed 14 March 2022). </ref>  


=== Conditions for the Derogation to Apply ===
=== (1) Conditions for the Derogation to Apply ===
For the derogation of Article 91 GDPR to become relevant, the following conditions must be fulfilled: (i) first, the controller or processor must qualify as a church, a religious association or a religious community ; (ii) second, the controller must have adopted and applied, before the entry into force of the GDPR, its own set of data protection rules; and (iii) third, this set of data protection rules must be comprehensive enough and in line with the GDPR (or must otherwise be brought in line with the GDPR).  
For the derogation of Article 91 GDPR to become relevant, the following conditions must be fulfilled: (i) first, the controller or processor must qualify as a church, a religious association or a religious community ; (ii) second, the controller must have adopted and applied, before the entry into force of the GDPR, its own set of data protection rules; and (iii) third, this set of data protection rules must be comprehensive enough and in line with the GDPR (or must otherwise be brought in line with the GDPR).  


==== Churches and religious associations or communities ====
==== Churches and religious associations or communities ====
The controller must fall within a specific category of actors, namely “''churches and religious associations or communities''”. The GDPR does not define these concepts. However, the EU legislator seems to have embraced a broad definition of the notion of religion in general. For instance, under Article 10(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU, “''[t]he concept of religion shall in particular include the holding of theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, the participation in, or abstention from, formal worship in private or in public, either alone or in community with others, other religious acts or expressions of view, or forms of personal or communal conduct based on or mandated by any religious belief and as a consequence of religious organisation''”.<ref>In this sense Tosoni, who adds how “''in principle, the concepts of' churches and religious associations or communities should also be interpreted broadly. For instance, in the Jehovah, Witnesses case, the CJEU seems to (implicitly) recognise that the Jehovas Witnesses community should be considered a religious association or community for the purposes of Article 17 TFEU and the DPD, and the Advocate General's Opinion in the same case suggests that this may be true also under Article 91 GDPR''”. See, ''Tosoni'', in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 91 GDPR, p. 1263 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> Based on these specifications, typical examples of religious organisations may include the Roman Catholic Church, and all the catholic associations or communities that belong to it (parishes, monasteries, convents, etc.), the Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe and all the organisations that operate under it (from national associations to local mosques), or the European Jewish Congress and the different communities it brings together (including national coordinating committees and local Jewish communities). Based on the EU legislator’s broad definition of religion, the notion of religious associations could further include smaller religious, philosophical or non-confessional organisations.<ref>''Tosoni'', in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 91 GDPR, p. 1263 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> In the ''Jehovan todistajat'' case for example, the CJEU seems to have recognized the Jehovah's Witnesses community as a religious association. In theory, the same considerations could also apply to other minority religious or philosophical groups, such as the Freemasons, the Church of Scientology or Buddhist communities.<ref>CJEU, C-25/17, ''Jehovan todistajat'', 10 July 2018 (available [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&td=ALL&num=C-25/17 here]).</ref>
The controller must fall within a specific category of actors, namely “''churches and religious associations or communities''”. The GDPR does not define these concepts. However, the EU legislator seems to have embraced a broad definition of the notion of religion in general. For instance, under Article 10(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU, “''[t]he concept of religion shall in particular include the holding of theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, the participation in, or abstention from, formal worship in private or in public, either alone or in community with others, other religious acts or expressions of view, or forms of personal or communal conduct based on or mandated by any religious belief and as a consequence of religious organisation''”.<ref>In this sense Tosoni, who adds how “''in principle, the concepts of' churches and religious associations or communities should also be interpreted broadly. For instance, in the Jehovah, Witnesses case, the CJEU seems to (implicitly) recognise that the Jehovas Witnesses community should be considered a religious association or community for the purposes of Article 17 TFEU and the DPD, and the Advocate General's Opinion in the same case suggests that this may be true also under Article 91 GDPR''”. See, ''Tosoni'', in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 91 GDPR, p. 1263 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> Based on these specifications, typical examples of religious organisations may include the Roman Catholic Church, and all the catholic associations or communities that belong to it (parishes, monasteries, convents, etc.), the Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe and all the organisations that operate under it (from national associations to local mosques), or the European Jewish Congress and the different communities it brings together (including national coordinating committees and local Jewish communities). Based on the EU legislator’s broad definition of religion, the notion of religious associations could further include smaller religious, philosophical or non-confessional organisations.<ref>''Tosoni'', in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 91 GDPR, p. 1263 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> In the [[CJEU - C-25/17 - Jehovan todistajat|''Jehovan todistajat'' case]] for example, the CJEU seems to have recognized the Jehovah's Witnesses community as a religious association. In theory, the same considerations could also apply to other minority religious or philosophical groups, such as the Freemasons, the Church of Scientology or Buddhist communities.<ref>CJEU, C-25/17, ''Jehovan todistajat'', 10 July 2018 (available [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&td=ALL&num=C-25/17 here]).</ref>


==== Preexisting data protection rules ====
==== Preexisting data protection rules ====
Line 212: Line 212:
Although the logic behind this second condition is understandable (i.e. allowing for the continuous separation between religious organisations and the state in the EU countries where such organisations already operated under a special regime), it also restricts future beneficiaries of Article 91 GDPR’s derogation. New religious groups, for example, cannot fulfil that condition because of the temporal limitation that it contains. As a result, it can be argued that Article 91 GDPR unduly discriminates between pre-established religious organisations and more recent or new religious groups.  
Although the logic behind this second condition is understandable (i.e. allowing for the continuous separation between religious organisations and the state in the EU countries where such organisations already operated under a special regime), it also restricts future beneficiaries of Article 91 GDPR’s derogation. New religious groups, for example, cannot fulfil that condition because of the temporal limitation that it contains. As a result, it can be argued that Article 91 GDPR unduly discriminates between pre-established religious organisations and more recent or new religious groups.  


Because of the stringent character of that second condition, only a handful of religious organisations benefit in practice from the derogation contained in Article 91 GDPR. For example, the Jehovah Witnesses community of Finland did not have its own specific set of data protection rules in place prior to the entry into force of the GDPR. Hence, in case C-25/17 (mentioned above), the CJEU considered that the processing of personal data in the context of its door-to-door preaching activities was subject to EU data protection law.<ref>D'Ath Florence and De Smedt Stéphanie, “''Arrêt Jehovan todistajat: clarification du champ d’application matériel de la législation en matière de protection des données et de la notion de responsable conjoint du traitemen''t”, in Journal de Droit Européen, 2019/2, pp. 67-69.</ref>As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, the derogation of Article 91 GDPR would only apply in Poland and in Italy - two Member States where the Catholic Church took advantage of its special status to adopt their own specific set of binding data protection rules in 1997<ref>Act on the Protection on Personal Data of 29 August 1997, Journal of Laws of 2016, 922.</ref> and 1999<ref>General Decree no. 1285/99 promulgated by the Italian Episcopal Conference on 20 October 1999.</ref> respectively, i.e. prior to the entry into force of the GDPR. By contrast, in other Member States, the Catholic Church did not adopt such rules and is thus subject to the GDPR.<ref>See, for example, Communiqués de l'église catholique de Belgique, "''Nouvelle loi sur la protection de la vie privée''", 25 avril 2018, (available [https://www.cathobel.be/2018/04/nouvelle-loi-sur-la-protection-de-la-vie-privee/ here]).</ref> As an illustration of this, in June 2020, an administrative court in Slovenia upheld a decision from the Slovenian DPA regarding the processing of personal data by a small parish of the Roman Catholic Church.<ref>A summary of the judgment can be found on the website of the EDPB. EDPB, ''Slovenian Administrative Court upholds the decision of the Slovenian SA: the right of erasure does not enable an individual to have his personal data erased from Baptismal Register'', 18 October 2021 (available [https://edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2021/slovenian-administrative-court-upholds-decision-slovenian-sa-right-erasure_en here]).</ref> The case was initiated by an individual who had requested his personal data to be erased from the Baptismal Register, because he was no longer a member of the church. The parish claimed however that it was required to keep these data on the basis of the Protection of Documents and Archives and Archival Institutions Act,<ref>Protection of Documents and Archives and Archival Institutions Act (ZVDAGA), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 30/06 and 51/14.</ref> which classifies the registry as archival material of outstanding national importance. The Slovenian DPA concluded that the parish did not violate data protection law by rejecting the request for erasure of the individual in question, because its archiving obligation prohibited such deletion. This decision was upheld by the administrative court in second instance. Even if the complaint of the individual was ultimately dismissed, this case shows that the parish in question was subject to the GDPR because, in Slovenia, the Roman Catholic Church did not adopt its own rules on data protection prior to 25 May 2016. Even in a situation when a religious organisation would have adopted its own set of data protection rules prior to 25 May 2016, Tosoni correctly argues that such special rules would in any case only operate “''as a lex specialis where such organisations process data for strictly religious purposes''”.<ref>''Tosoni'', in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 91 GDPR, p. 1263 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> In other words, the processing operations that fall outside of the religious activities of the concerned organisations would remain subject to the GDPR.  
Because of the stringent character of that second condition, only a handful of religious organisations benefit in practice from the derogation contained in Article 91 GDPR. For example, the Jehovah Witnesses community of Finland did not have its own specific set of data protection rules in place prior to the entry into force of the GDPR. Hence, in case [[CJEU - C-25/17 - Jehovan todistajat|C-25/17]] (mentioned above), the CJEU considered that the processing of personal data in the context of its door-to-door preaching activities was subject to EU data protection law.<ref>D'Ath Florence and De Smedt Stéphanie, “''Arrêt Jehovan todistajat: clarification du champ d’application matériel de la législation en matière de protection des données et de la notion de responsable conjoint du traitemen''t”, in Journal de Droit Européen, 2019/2, pp. 67-69.</ref>As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, the derogation of Article 91 GDPR would only apply in Poland and in Italy - two Member States where the Catholic Church took advantage of its special status to adopt their own specific set of binding data protection rules in 1997<ref>Act on the Protection on Personal Data of 29 August 1997, Journal of Laws of 2016, 922.</ref> and 1999<ref>General Decree no. 1285/99 promulgated by the Italian Episcopal Conference on 20 October 1999.</ref> respectively, i.e. prior to the entry into force of the GDPR. By contrast, in other Member States, the Catholic Church did not adopt such rules and is thus subject to the GDPR.<ref>See, for example, Communiqués de l'église catholique de Belgique, "''Nouvelle loi sur la protection de la vie privée''", 25 avril 2018, (available [https://www.cathobel.be/2018/04/nouvelle-loi-sur-la-protection-de-la-vie-privee/ here]).</ref> As an illustration of this, in June 2020, an administrative court in Slovenia upheld a decision from the Slovenian DPA regarding the processing of personal data by a small parish of the Roman Catholic Church.<ref>A summary of the judgment can be found on the website of the EDPB. EDPB, ''Slovenian Administrative Court upholds the decision of the Slovenian SA: the right of erasure does not enable an individual to have his personal data erased from Baptismal Register'', 18 October 2021 (available [https://edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2021/slovenian-administrative-court-upholds-decision-slovenian-sa-right-erasure_en here]).</ref> The case was initiated by an individual who had requested his personal data to be erased from the Baptismal Register, because he was no longer a member of the church. The parish claimed however that it was required to keep these data on the basis of the Protection of Documents and Archives and Archival Institutions Act,<ref>Protection of Documents and Archives and Archival Institutions Act (ZVDAGA), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 30/06 and 51/14.</ref> which classifies the registry as archival material of outstanding national importance. The Slovenian DPA concluded that the parish did not violate data protection law by rejecting the request for erasure of the individual in question, because its archiving obligation prohibited such deletion. This decision was upheld by the administrative court in second instance. Even if the complaint of the individual was ultimately dismissed, this case shows that the parish in question was subject to the GDPR because, in Slovenia, the Roman Catholic Church did not adopt its own rules on data protection prior to 25 May 2016. Even in a situation when a religious organisation would have adopted its own set of data protection rules prior to 25 May 2016, Tosoni correctly argues that such special rules would in any case only operate “''as a lex specialis where such organisations process data for strictly religious purposes''”.<ref>''Tosoni'', in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 91 GDPR, p. 1263 (Oxford University Press 2020).</ref> In other words, the processing operations that fall outside of the religious activities of the concerned organisations would remain subject to the GDPR.  


==== Rules that are comprehensive and in line with the GDPR ====
==== Rules that are comprehensive and in line with the GDPR ====
The third and final condition for the derogation of Article 91 GDPR to apply is that the ''lex specialis'' of the religious organisation must be “''comprehensive''” and "''brought in line with the GDPR"''. Thus, if it is found that the ''lex specialis'' of a religious association does not reach this level of completeness or was not brought in line with the GDPR, the latter will apply instead. To meet this condition, the Roman Catholic Church of Poland and Italy amended their existing data protection rules to bring them in line with the GDPR in 2018.<ref>See, Italian Episcopal Decree 2018 and Polish Episcopal Decree 2018 on the Protection of Individuals in Relation to the Processing of Personal Data in the Catholic Church.</ref> The applicable decrees provide, inter alia, that the Church must keep a record of processing activities, appoint a DPO and report data breaches when they occur.<ref>''Tosoni'', in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 91 GDPR, p.1264.</ref> The GDPR does not provide any clear indications as to the level of comprehensiveness and equivalence which must exist between the GDPR and the ''lex specialis''. It can be assumed however that the general principles of data protection law as enshrined in Article 5 GDPR must be complied with, and that the rights of the data subjects as found in the GDPR must also be available under the ''lex specialis''. In other words, there must exist a basic level of equivalence between the ''lex specialis'' and the GDPR. However, there may still be minor divergences from the GDPR when necessary to achieve the ultimate aim of the provision, which is to protect the independence of churches and religious associations or communities.
The third and final condition for the derogation of Article 91 GDPR to apply is that the ''lex specialis'' of the religious organisation must be “''comprehensive''” and "''brought in line with the GDPR"''. Thus, if it is found that the ''lex specialis'' of a religious association does not reach this level of completeness or was not brought in line with the GDPR, the latter will apply instead. To meet this condition, the Roman Catholic Church of Poland and Italy amended their existing data protection rules to bring them in line with the GDPR in 2018.<ref>See, Italian Episcopal Decree 2018 and Polish Episcopal Decree 2018 on the Protection of Individuals in Relation to the Processing of Personal Data in the Catholic Church.</ref> The applicable decrees provide, inter alia, that the Church must keep a record of processing activities, appoint a DPO and report data breaches when they occur.<ref>''Tosoni'', in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 91 GDPR, p.1264.</ref> The GDPR does not provide any clear indications as to the level of comprehensiveness and equivalence which must exist between the GDPR and the ''lex specialis''. It can be assumed however that the general principles of data protection law as enshrined in Article 5 GDPR must be complied with, and that the rights of the data subjects as found in the GDPR must also be available under the ''lex specialis''. In other words, there must exist a basic level of equivalence between the ''lex specialis'' and the GDPR. However, there may still be minor divergences from the GDPR when necessary to achieve the ultimate aim of the provision, which is to protect the independence of churches and religious associations or communities.


=== DPA supervision ===
=== (2) DPA supervision ===
Religious organisations that fulfil the requirements listed in Paragraph 1 and therefore continue to apply their special rules must be subject to the supervision of an independent supervisory authority. It can either be a specific authority established by a religious organisation itself, or the general DPA responsible for monitoring the application of the GDPR at the regional or national level. In both cases, all the conditions specified in Chapter VI GDPR relating to supervisory authorities must be met. For example, the authority must be sufficiently independent in line with Article 52 GDPR. In Poland, the Roman Catholic Church has made use of that possibility by establishing a specific supervisory authority in charge of monitoring the processing activities of the country’s Church, referred to as the Church Data Protection Inspector (''Kościelny Inspektor Ochrony Danych'').<ref>Articles 35 to 40 of the Polish Episcopal Decree 2018.</ref> Whether this authority meets all the requirements set in Chapter VI GDPR remains to be assessed.  
Religious organisations that fulfil the requirements listed in Paragraph 1 and therefore continue to apply their special rules must be subject to the supervision of an independent supervisory authority. It can either be a specific authority established by a religious organisation itself, or the general DPA responsible for monitoring the application of the GDPR at the regional or national level. In both cases, all the conditions specified in Chapter VI GDPR relating to supervisory authorities must be met. For example, the authority must be sufficiently independent in line with Article 52 GDPR. In Poland, the Roman Catholic Church has made use of that possibility by establishing a specific supervisory authority in charge of monitoring the processing activities of the country’s Church, referred to as the Church Data Protection Inspector (''Kościelny Inspektor Ochrony Danych'').<ref>Articles 35 to 40 of the Polish Episcopal Decree 2018.</ref> Whether this authority meets all the requirements set in Chapter VI GDPR remains to be assessed.  


Line 225: Line 225:
== References ==
== References ==
<references />
<references />
* '''[https://artikel91.eu Artikel 91. Datenschutz in Kirchen und Religionsgemeinschaften]''': Blog on data protection in religious organizations (in German)
* [https://artikel91.eu/rechtssammlung/ '''List of laws and specific supervisory authorities''' according to Art. 91 GDPR (in German)]


[[Category:Article 91 GDPR]] [[Category:GDPR Articles]]
[[Category:Article 91 GDPR]] [[Category:GDPR Articles]]

Latest revision as of 10:04, 19 March 2024

Article 91 - Existing data protection rules of churches and religious associations
Gdpricon.png
Chapter 10: Delegated and implementing acts

Legal Text


Article 91 - Existing data protection rules of churches and religious associations

1. Where in a Member State, churches and religious associations or communities apply, at the time of entry into force of this Regulation, comprehensive rules relating to the protection of natural persons with regard to processing, such rules may continue to apply, provided that they are brought into line with this Regulation.

2. Churches and religious associations which apply comprehensive rules in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article shall be subject to the supervision of an independent supervisory authority, which may be specific, provided that it fulfils the conditions laid down in Chapter VI of this Regulation.

Relevant Recitals

Recital 4: Balance Against Other Fundamental Rights
The processing of personal data should be designed to serve mankind. The right to the protection of personal data is not an absolute right; it must be considered in relation to its function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights, in accordance with the principle of proportionality. This Regulation respects all fundamental rights and observes the freedoms and principles recognised in the Charter as enshrined in the Treaties, in particular the respect for private and family life, home and communications, the protection of personal data, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and information, freedom to conduct a business, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.

Recital 54: Processing of Health Data for Reasons of Public Interest
The processing of special categories of personal data may be necessary for reasons of public interest in the areas of public health without consent of the data subject. Such processing should be subject to suitable and specific measures so as to protect the rights and freedoms of natural persons. In that context, ‘public health’ should be interpreted as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, namely all elements related to health, namely health status, including morbidity and disability, the determinants having an effect on that health status, health care needs, resources allocated to health care, the provision of, and universal access to, health care as well as health care expenditure and financing, and the causes of mortality. Such processing of data concerning health for reasons of public interest should not result in personal data being processed for other purposes by third parties such as employers or insurance and banking companies.

Recital 55: Processing by Authorities to Achieve Aims of Religious Associations
Moreover, the processing of personal data by official authorities for the purpose of achieving the aims, laid down by constitutional law or by international public law, of officially recognised religious associations, is carried out on grounds of public interest.

Recital 165: No Prejudice to the Status of Churches and Religious Associations or Communities Under Current Constitutional Law
This Regulation respects and does not prejudice the status under existing constitutional law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States, as recognised in Article 17 TFEU.

Commentary

Religious organisations usually process large quantities of personal data relating to their members, for example religious or philosophical beliefs, which are considered  special categories of personal data pursuant to Article 9 GDPR. As a consequence, ensuring that they comply with data protection law is essential to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects who are (or were) members of such organisations. For historical reasons, however, specific religious organisations may benefit from a particular status in some Member States, which allows them to apply and adopt their own set of binding rules, distinct from national law. For example, as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, some Member States allow for canon law to apply instead of national law for matters falling within the competences of the church. Article 91 GDPR takes this reality into account by allowing, under certain circumstances, churches and religious associations or communities to be subject to their own set of data protection rules, distinct from the GDPR. This derogation is however subject to stringent conditions, as further detailed below. By implication, churches and religious associations or communities that do not meet these conditions remain bound by the GDPR in its entirety.[1]

(1) Conditions for the Derogation to Apply

For the derogation of Article 91 GDPR to become relevant, the following conditions must be fulfilled: (i) first, the controller or processor must qualify as a church, a religious association or a religious community ; (ii) second, the controller must have adopted and applied, before the entry into force of the GDPR, its own set of data protection rules; and (iii) third, this set of data protection rules must be comprehensive enough and in line with the GDPR (or must otherwise be brought in line with the GDPR).

Churches and religious associations or communities

The controller must fall within a specific category of actors, namely “churches and religious associations or communities”. The GDPR does not define these concepts. However, the EU legislator seems to have embraced a broad definition of the notion of religion in general. For instance, under Article 10(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU, “[t]he concept of religion shall in particular include the holding of theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, the participation in, or abstention from, formal worship in private or in public, either alone or in community with others, other religious acts or expressions of view, or forms of personal or communal conduct based on or mandated by any religious belief and as a consequence of religious organisation”.[2] Based on these specifications, typical examples of religious organisations may include the Roman Catholic Church, and all the catholic associations or communities that belong to it (parishes, monasteries, convents, etc.), the Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe and all the organisations that operate under it (from national associations to local mosques), or the European Jewish Congress and the different communities it brings together (including national coordinating committees and local Jewish communities). Based on the EU legislator’s broad definition of religion, the notion of religious associations could further include smaller religious, philosophical or non-confessional organisations.[3] In the Jehovan todistajat case for example, the CJEU seems to have recognized the Jehovah's Witnesses community as a religious association. In theory, the same considerations could also apply to other minority religious or philosophical groups, such as the Freemasons, the Church of Scientology or Buddhist communities.[4]

Preexisting data protection rules

The second condition for the derogation prescribed in Article 91 GDPR to apply is that the religious organisations must have already adopted and applied their own set of data protection rules prior to the entry into force of the GDPR (i.e. prior to 25 May 2016). In practice, this presupposes that the religious organisations (i) must have been allowed to adopt such rules in the first place under national law (cf. special regime); and (ii) must have made use of that possibility before 25 May 2016.

Although the logic behind this second condition is understandable (i.e. allowing for the continuous separation between religious organisations and the state in the EU countries where such organisations already operated under a special regime), it also restricts future beneficiaries of Article 91 GDPR’s derogation. New religious groups, for example, cannot fulfil that condition because of the temporal limitation that it contains. As a result, it can be argued that Article 91 GDPR unduly discriminates between pre-established religious organisations and more recent or new religious groups.

Because of the stringent character of that second condition, only a handful of religious organisations benefit in practice from the derogation contained in Article 91 GDPR. For example, the Jehovah Witnesses community of Finland did not have its own specific set of data protection rules in place prior to the entry into force of the GDPR. Hence, in case C-25/17 (mentioned above), the CJEU considered that the processing of personal data in the context of its door-to-door preaching activities was subject to EU data protection law.[5]As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, the derogation of Article 91 GDPR would only apply in Poland and in Italy - two Member States where the Catholic Church took advantage of its special status to adopt their own specific set of binding data protection rules in 1997[6] and 1999[7] respectively, i.e. prior to the entry into force of the GDPR. By contrast, in other Member States, the Catholic Church did not adopt such rules and is thus subject to the GDPR.[8] As an illustration of this, in June 2020, an administrative court in Slovenia upheld a decision from the Slovenian DPA regarding the processing of personal data by a small parish of the Roman Catholic Church.[9] The case was initiated by an individual who had requested his personal data to be erased from the Baptismal Register, because he was no longer a member of the church. The parish claimed however that it was required to keep these data on the basis of the Protection of Documents and Archives and Archival Institutions Act,[10] which classifies the registry as archival material of outstanding national importance. The Slovenian DPA concluded that the parish did not violate data protection law by rejecting the request for erasure of the individual in question, because its archiving obligation prohibited such deletion. This decision was upheld by the administrative court in second instance. Even if the complaint of the individual was ultimately dismissed, this case shows that the parish in question was subject to the GDPR because, in Slovenia, the Roman Catholic Church did not adopt its own rules on data protection prior to 25 May 2016. Even in a situation when a religious organisation would have adopted its own set of data protection rules prior to 25 May 2016, Tosoni correctly argues that such special rules would in any case only operate “as a lex specialis where such organisations process data for strictly religious purposes”.[11] In other words, the processing operations that fall outside of the religious activities of the concerned organisations would remain subject to the GDPR.

Rules that are comprehensive and in line with the GDPR

The third and final condition for the derogation of Article 91 GDPR to apply is that the lex specialis of the religious organisation must be “comprehensive” and "brought in line with the GDPR". Thus, if it is found that the lex specialis of a religious association does not reach this level of completeness or was not brought in line with the GDPR, the latter will apply instead. To meet this condition, the Roman Catholic Church of Poland and Italy amended their existing data protection rules to bring them in line with the GDPR in 2018.[12] The applicable decrees provide, inter alia, that the Church must keep a record of processing activities, appoint a DPO and report data breaches when they occur.[13] The GDPR does not provide any clear indications as to the level of comprehensiveness and equivalence which must exist between the GDPR and the lex specialis. It can be assumed however that the general principles of data protection law as enshrined in Article 5 GDPR must be complied with, and that the rights of the data subjects as found in the GDPR must also be available under the lex specialis. In other words, there must exist a basic level of equivalence between the lex specialis and the GDPR. However, there may still be minor divergences from the GDPR when necessary to achieve the ultimate aim of the provision, which is to protect the independence of churches and religious associations or communities.

(2) DPA supervision

Religious organisations that fulfil the requirements listed in Paragraph 1 and therefore continue to apply their special rules must be subject to the supervision of an independent supervisory authority. It can either be a specific authority established by a religious organisation itself, or the general DPA responsible for monitoring the application of the GDPR at the regional or national level. In both cases, all the conditions specified in Chapter VI GDPR relating to supervisory authorities must be met. For example, the authority must be sufficiently independent in line with Article 52 GDPR. In Poland, the Roman Catholic Church has made use of that possibility by establishing a specific supervisory authority in charge of monitoring the processing activities of the country’s Church, referred to as the Church Data Protection Inspector (Kościelny Inspektor Ochrony Danych).[14] Whether this authority meets all the requirements set in Chapter VI GDPR remains to be assessed.

Decisions

→ You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 91 GDPR

References

  1. Giovanni Buttarelli (EDPS), Personal Data Protection in churches and religious organisation: Speech to a Conference organised by the Polish Inspector for Personal Data Protection, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University of Warsaw, Opole University and the University of Szczecin, Warsaw, 25 February 2016 (available here) (accessed 14 March 2022).
  2. In this sense Tosoni, who adds how “in principle, the concepts of' churches and religious associations or communities should also be interpreted broadly. For instance, in the Jehovah, Witnesses case, the CJEU seems to (implicitly) recognise that the Jehovas Witnesses community should be considered a religious association or community for the purposes of Article 17 TFEU and the DPD, and the Advocate General's Opinion in the same case suggests that this may be true also under Article 91 GDPR”. See, Tosoni, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 91 GDPR, p. 1263 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  3. Tosoni, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 91 GDPR, p. 1263 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  4. CJEU, C-25/17, Jehovan todistajat, 10 July 2018 (available here).
  5. D'Ath Florence and De Smedt Stéphanie, “Arrêt Jehovan todistajat: clarification du champ d’application matériel de la législation en matière de protection des données et de la notion de responsable conjoint du traitement”, in Journal de Droit Européen, 2019/2, pp. 67-69.
  6. Act on the Protection on Personal Data of 29 August 1997, Journal of Laws of 2016, 922.
  7. General Decree no. 1285/99 promulgated by the Italian Episcopal Conference on 20 October 1999.
  8. See, for example, Communiqués de l'église catholique de Belgique, "Nouvelle loi sur la protection de la vie privée", 25 avril 2018, (available here).
  9. A summary of the judgment can be found on the website of the EDPB. EDPB, Slovenian Administrative Court upholds the decision of the Slovenian SA: the right of erasure does not enable an individual to have his personal data erased from Baptismal Register, 18 October 2021 (available here).
  10. Protection of Documents and Archives and Archival Institutions Act (ZVDAGA), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 30/06 and 51/14.
  11. Tosoni, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 91 GDPR, p. 1263 (Oxford University Press 2020).
  12. See, Italian Episcopal Decree 2018 and Polish Episcopal Decree 2018 on the Protection of Individuals in Relation to the Processing of Personal Data in the Catholic Church.
  13. Tosoni, in Kuner et al., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 91 GDPR, p.1264.
  14. Articles 35 to 40 of the Polish Episcopal Decree 2018.