Upravno sodišče - TBD

From GDPRhub
Upravno sodišče - TBD
Courts logo1.png
Court: UPRS (Slovenia)
Jurisdiction: Slovenia
Relevant Law: Article 17 GDPR
Decided: 02.06.2021
Published: 13.10.2021
Parties: A parish of the Roman Catholic Church
National Case Number/Name: TBD
European Case Law Identifier:
Appeal from: IP (Slovenia)
Appeal to: Unknown
Original Language(s): Slovenian English
Original Source: IP (in Slovenian) EDPB (in English)
Initial Contributor: GDPR+

The Slovenian Administrative Court held that the right of erasure did not entitle an individual to have their personal data erased from the Baptismal Register.

English Summary


A parish of the Roman Catholic Church was processing the application of an individual on the right of erasure. The individual requested their personal data to be erased from the Baptismal Register, because they were no longer a member of the church. In their opinion, the collected data were no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected. They did not give consent for their baptism or processing of his personal data. The individual also claimed that personal data entered in the register revealed religious beliefs and interfered with their religious freedom.

The data collected in the register were: first and last name of individual, date of birth, date of baptism, names of parents and godparents and place of residence. The parish claimed that the legal basis for the processing of data in the register is mainly the Protection of Documents and Archives and Archival Institutions Act, which classifies the registry as archival material of outstanding national importance, therefore it is not allowed to delete any of the data contained. The parish has also made an additional entry in the register stating that the person is no longer a member of the church.

The Slovenian DPA assessed if the processing is necessary for archiving purposes in the public interest in accordance with Article 89(1) GDPR and if the erasure is likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of the objectives of that processing (Article 17(3)(d) GDPR). The SA emphasised, that the aforementioned act itself stipulates that church documentary material has the characteristics of archival material. It is also subject to the principles of permanence and integrity and it provides measures which can be considered as appropriate safeguards according to 89(1) GDPR.

The DPA decided that the Baptismal Register is an archive document according to the national act and that the individual cannot claim the right of erasure when the processing is needed for archiving purposes in the public interest. Deletion of the data would seriously hamper the achievement of these objectives. The decision has been challenged in the court of justice.


The Administrative Court upheld the decision of the DPA and added that the individual was not faced with religious elements by the mere fact that the parish stores their data in the register. Subsequent entries clearly demonstrated that the individual was no longer a member of the church, which was also a representation of his right not to belong to a religion.


Share your comments here!

Further Resources


English Machine Translation of the Decision

The decision below is a machine translation of the Slovenian original. Please refer to the Slovenian original for more details.

                        The Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia (court) upheld the decision of the Information Commissioner (IP) that an individual cannot invoke the erasure of his personal data from a baptismal certificate by invoking the right to erasure from Article 17 of the General Regulation (right to be forgotten). Roman Catholic Church (RCC). & # 13;
In the specific case, the individual requested the deletion of all his personal data from the RKC baptismal register. The latter allegedly kept his personal data in the baptismal certificate illegally, as he himself had never consented to such processing of his personal data or had unequivocally revoked such consent (given to him by his parents) (Article 17/1 / b and d). & # 13;
RKC as the manager rejected this request of the individual. An appeal against the RCC's decision was decided by the IP, who first had to determine whether any of the circumstances referred to in Article 17/3 of the General Regulation were present, which completely excluded the application of the first paragraph and limited the individual's right to erasure or oblivion. According to the findings of the IP, which were also confirmed by the Court, the keeping of personal data in the RCC baptismal registers is a case of processing under Article 17/3 / d of the General Regulation, ie. for processing required for archiving purposes in the public interest. That provision of the General Regulation, moreover, imposes an additional condition for the application of that restriction on the right to erasure, namely that such a restriction applies if the right to erasure could impede or seriously impede the pursuit of the purposes of that processing. IP and the court did not have to determine the fulfillment of this condition, as the issue has already been resolved by the legislator in the first paragraph of Article 52 of the Protection of Documentary and Archival Materials and Archives Act (Official Gazette of the RS, nos. 30/06 and 51/14; ZVDAGA). This stipulates that RKC material has the characteristics of archival material under this Act, and is subject to the principles of permanence and integrity. The test of proportionality between the right to the processing of personal data for the purposes of archiving in the public interest and the interference with the individual's right to information privacy has therefore already been performed by the legislator. Therefore, the IP rejected the individual's appeal against the RCC's decision, as the conditions for the deletion of personal data under Article 17 of the General Regulation are not met. The court upheld the IP's decision and dismissed the individual's lawsuit against his decision. & # 13;
The court also noted in the decision that the storage of personal data of an individual in the baptismal register is not, by its very nature, a case where the plaintiff perceives the confession or exercise of religion, which would mean such a forced confrontation with a religious belief. his religious freedom. By bare storage of his personal data in the baptismal certificate, the individual is not forcibly confronted with religious elements or forced to participate in the exercise of religion. it in itself represents respect for his right not to belong to any religion.