Jehovan todistajat (C-25/17): Are Door-to-Door Notes a Personal Activity?
No. The EU Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) held that notes taken during door-to-door preaching are not a purely personal or household activity, because the preaching reaches people outside the preacher’s private sphere. Manual notes can form a filing system, and the religious community was a joint controller with its members.
Case Summary
| Court | Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) |
|---|---|
| Case | C-25/17, Tietosuojavaltuutettu (intervening: Jehovan todistajat, uskonnollinen yhdyskunta) |
| Decided | 10 July 2018 |
| Referred by | Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court), Finland |
| Law applied | Directive 95/46/EC, Articles 2(c), 2(d) and 3(2) |
| Original measure | Data Protection Board ban on collecting data while preaching unless legal requirements were met, plus a six-month collection ban |
Background
Members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses community in Finland took notes while preaching door to door. The notes could include names and addresses of people visited, their religious beliefs and family circumstances, and were kept as a memory aid for later visits without those people knowing (judgment, para. 15).
The community and its congregations organised the preaching: they drew up maps allocating areas to preachers, kept records of preachers, and maintained a list of people who did not want further visits. The community had published guidance on note-taking and had once supplied forms for it, which it dropped after a recommendation from Finland’s Data Protection Ombudsman (para. 16).
On 17 September 2013, at the Ombudsman’s request, the Data Protection Board prohibited the community from collecting or processing such data unless Finnish legal requirements were met. The Helsinki Administrative Court annulled that decision in December 2014, finding that the community was not a controller. The Ombudsman appealed, and the Supreme Administrative Court referred the case to Luxembourg (paras. 11 to 14, 24).
The Court’s Reasoning on the Household Exemption
The Court restated the test from earlier cases: an activity is not purely personal if it makes data available to an unrestricted number of people, or if it reaches, even partly, into public space and so is directed outwards from the private setting (para. 42). Door-to-door preaching is meant to reach people outside the faith, and some notes were passed to congregations for the do-not-visit lists (paras. 44 to 45).
Freedom of religion protects the preaching, but it does not make it private (para. 49). The Court also held that handwritten notes structured so they can be easily retrieved count as a filing system, with no need for index cards or formal lists (para. 62); see the definition in Art. 4 GDPR. And an organisation that organises, coordinates and encourages its members’ data collection can be a joint controller without ever seeing the data (para. 75), the rule now in Art. 26 GDPR.
Timeline
Amber marks the decisive decision or ruling.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| At the Data Protection Ombudsman’s request, the Finnish Data Protection Board prohibits the community from collecting data while preaching unless legal requirements are met | |
| The Helsinki Administrative Court annuls the decision, finding the community is not a controller | |
| On the Ombudsman’s appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court refers four questions to the CJEU | |
| Oral hearing before the Grand Chamber | |
| Advocate General Mengozzi delivers his Opinion | |
| The Court rules the notes fall under data protection law and the community is a joint controller |
Why This Case Still Matters
The ruling reaches well beyond religious communities. It confirms that paper notes are not a loophole, and that an organisation cannot avoid responsibility by leaving the note-taking to members or volunteers. The Court later relied on it in Buivids (paras. 41 and 43) when applying the household exemption to online video.
The judgment turns on who organises the activity. Once a community allocated areas, published note-taking guidance and kept shared lists, the notes stopped being each preacher’s private business. For any organisation in that position, the reasoning points to treating the collection as its own processing: deciding what may be noted, avoiding sensitive details such as religious beliefs (Art. 9 GDPR) unless there is a valid condition, and setting out roles in a joint-controller arrangement. The community’s own step of dropping its data-collection forms after the Ombudsman’s recommendation shows the kind of change regulators look for (para. 16).
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was door-to-door preaching not a personal or household activity?
Because it is directed outwards. The Court said preaching aims to spread the faith among people outside the preacher’s community, and some of the notes were shared with congregations to compile lists of people who did not want further visits (paras. 44 to 45).
Can handwritten notes be covered by data protection law?
Yes, if they form part of a filing system. The Court held that notes structured according to specific criteria, such as names, addresses and beliefs, so that they can easily be retrieved later, count as a filing system. Index cards or formal lists are not required (para. 62).
Can an organisation be a controller without accessing the data?
Yes. The Court held that a religious community which organises, coordinates and encourages its members’ preaching is a joint controller of the data they collect, even without access to the notes and without written instructions (para. 75).
Does freedom of religion exempt this kind of processing?
No. Door-to-door preaching is protected as a manifestation of religious belief, but that does not give it an exclusively personal or household character (para. 49). The Court added that complying with data protection law does not interfere with a religious community’s organisational autonomy (para. 74).
What did the Finnish authorities originally decide?
On 17 September 2013, the Data Protection Board prohibited the community from collecting or processing personal data during preaching unless Finnish legal requirements were met, and imposed a six-month collection ban. The Helsinki Administrative Court annulled that decision in December 2014 before the case reached the CJEU (paras. 11 and 13).
Coordinating volunteers, canvassers or field staff who take notes? If you hand out areas, scripts or note templates, you may be a joint controller for what people write down. A DPO can map who is responsible for what.
Sources
- CJEU (Grand Chamber), Case C-25/17 Jehovan todistajat, judgment of 10 July 2018: full text
- CJEU Press Release No 103/18, Judgment in Case C-25/17
- Full judgment text, Buivids (C-345/17)
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR), Recital 18 and Article 2(2)(c): official text