The names of professional athletes sanctioned for doping can be published online, but not automatically and not after the suspension has expired.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has decided that national legislations can allow the online publication of the name of a professional athlete who has violated anti-doping rules, along with the reason and duration of the suspension. However, the responsible authority must analyze the situation of each athlete before publication, respect proportionality, and not keep the information online after the sanction has expired. The athlete must be able to proactively notify the data protection authority when publication is imminent.

The EU member states can allow the publication on the internet of the name of a professional athlete sanctioned for doping, the offense committed, and the duration of the suspension, the Court of Justice of the European Union has decided. However, publication cannot function as an automatic and identical consequence in all cases: the authority must weigh the interest in the fight against doping against the athlete's rights to private life and data protection before the information appears online.

In short

The Court has decided that the General Data Protection Regulation does not prohibit, in principle, the online publication of the name of a professional athlete sanctioned for doping, the reason for the sanction, and the duration of the suspension.

The anti-doping authority must be able to individually analyze the situation before publication. A system that mandates automatic publication, without the possibility of weighing the interests involved, does not meet the requirements set by the Court.

Information should not remain online after the suspension has expired. The Court considers it disproportionate to publish the athlete's name for a longer period than the sanction.

The name of the banned substance or method can become health-related information when, together with other data, it allows the deduction of the past, present, or future physical or mental state of the athlete.

The athlete must be able to file a proactive complaint with the data protection authority if there are concrete indications that publication is imminent or will occur in the near future.

The ruling was pronounced in case C-474/24, NADA Austria and others, after four athletes challenged the publication of their names on the websites of the Austrian bodies responsible for enforcing anti-doping rules.

The Austrian anti-doping legal commission and the independent arbitration commission suspended the four athletes from national and international competitions for determined periods or for life. The sanctions were applied for violating anti-doping rules.

Austrian legislation provides for the publication on the website of the national anti-doping agency of the athlete's first and last name, the sport practiced, the offense committed, the sanction, and the start and end dates of the sanction. The legal commission must also publish the name of the banned substance used.

The athletes challenged the publication of their name and the sport practiced before the Federal Administrative Court of Austria. They argued that the information could constitute health data and data related to convictions or offenses and that the Austrian system of indiscriminate publication violates the General Data Protection Regulation.

The Austrian court asked the Court of Justice to clarify how European data protection rules apply. The Court does not resolve the dispute between the athletes and the Austrian authorities, but its interpretation is binding for the national court and for other courts examining similar issues.

The Court first established that the publication of this information falls within the scope of EU law and the General Data Protection Regulation. The exception for protecting national security does not apply to such processing.

The mere information that a person has violated an anti-doping rule and has been suspended does not, in principle, represent health-related information. The situation can change when the name or category of the banned substance or method is also published.

This information becomes health data when, combined with other elements, it allows the deduction of information about the past, present, or future physical or mental state of the athlete. Additional protection does not depend only on the published wording but also on what can be reasonably deduced from the entirety of the available information.

The Court also rejected the argument that anti-doping sanctions should automatically be treated as data related to convictions and criminal offenses. The rules and sanctions of anti-doping address a specific category, athletes, and aim to ensure compliance with the specific professional and disciplinary norms.

Therefore, they are comparable to disciplinary sanctions applied to members of a professional group and do not fall, solely for this reason, into the special category of data regarding criminal convictions and offenses.

The Court recognized that the fight against doping is a matter of general interest. It aims to ensure fairness and integrity in competitions, equal opportunities among athletes, protect health, and uphold the ethical values of sport.

The publication of sanctions can contribute to preventing doping, deterring other offenses, and enhancing the effectiveness of sanctions. It can also inform indirectly affected parties, such as current or potential employers and sponsors of a professional athlete.

For this reason, the Court did not establish that publication should be limited only to federations, clubs, or other persons directly involved in competitions. Publication on the internet can be justified, but only if the specific manner in which it is done respects data protection.

The main condition is the existence of an individual assessment before publication. The responsible body must be able to analyze the public interest pursued, the severity of the offense, the athlete's situation, the information that is to be published, and the effects on private life.

The ruling does not grant each athlete an automatic right to block publication. It imposes the existence of a mechanism through which the authority can conclude, depending on the circumstances, that full publication, limitation of information, or non-publication is the proportional solution.

The Court also indicates that high-profile athletes known to the public may have a special responsibility. This circumstance can weigh in the analysis of public interest but does not eliminate the obligation of individual assessment.

The duration of publication must be limited. Keeping the name and sanction online after the suspension has expired produces a longer interference in private life and data protection than the duration of the applied sporting measure.

The Court considers that publication for a period exceeding the duration of the sanction is disproportionate, given the impact that the accessibility of the information on the internet can have on the athlete's reputation and professional activity.

For a determined suspension, the information should not, therefore, remain published after the date on which the athlete can resume activity. The ruling does not separately detail the application in the case of a lifetime ban, leaving the concrete analysis to the authorities and the national court.

Athletes must also have the opportunity to act before the information is published. A proactive complaint to the competent data protection authority is admissible when there are concrete indications that publication is about to occur or will take place in the near future.

The data protection authority cannot reject such a complaint solely because the information has not yet been published. The athlete should not have to wait for the appearance of their name on the internet and the effects on private life to request verification of the legality of the measure.

In the case of the four athletes, the Federal Administrative Court of Austria will have to apply the Court's interpretation and determine whether the national system allows for a real individual assessment, whether the published data is proportional, and whether the duration of publication respects the limits set by EU law.

The operative part of the ruling, read by the President of the Court, Koen Lenaerts, confirms that the publication of the name, sport practiced, violation, sanction, and its duration falls under the General Data Protection Regulation. It also confirms the right to a proactive complaint when there are concrete indications of imminent publication.

https://2eu.brussels/ro/news/numele-sportivilor-profesionisti-sanctionati-pentru-dopaj-pot-fi-publicate-online-dar-nu-automat-si-nici-dupa-expirarea-suspendarii