It complains under Article 8 of the Convention that one’s name and address were data which was widely available in the public domain. Moreover, the notes made by the members of the community are protected against State interference under their right to privacy.
Yeah right, names and addresses are public domain data? Surely not.
And I hope JW don't try to pretend names and addresses are all they note? They write about people's religious beliefs, health issues, etc. All those fall in the highest class of sensitive data, and data collection may only be done under strict conditions.
Then JW claim people have freely offered the information to the JW publishers when talking to them. As far as I know that doesn't matter under GDPR; these people can't know that information will be stored, shared and used. People did not consent to their data being used in such ways. It would be different if JW publishers asked proper consent for storing and using the data, but I have never met a JW who does.
The most intriguing claim of JW is that their GDPR-violating notes are protected....under GDPR?!!?! So basically they say "the government can't interfere with us violating other people's privacy, because that would violate our privacy"...just wow....