News
Data Protection vs. Anti-Doping Measures - Advocate General Ćapeta Perspective
This case highlights the challenging balance between safeguarding data privacy and preserving the integrity of sport through anti-doping measures. In a world where the internet is the primary channel for information dissemination, adapting data protection regulations to meet evolving dynamics while upholding the preventive goals of anti-doping initiatives is a critical consideration. The outcome of this case is expected to set a significant precedent in this ongoing and crucial debate.

Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta's (Ćapeta) recent opinion offers a unique perspective on the clash between data protection and anti-doping regulations.
Ćapeta suggests that if the primary purpose is deterrence, the publication of personal data by a national anti-doping authority on the internet may not be considered as a breach of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
In the case C-115/22, the Austrian Anti-Doping Legal Committee (ÖADR) penalized the athlete (Austrian professional middle-distance) by invalidating her results, revoking entry fees, prize money, and banning her from participating in sporting competitions of any kind for a period of four years. This decision was upheld by the ÖADR and the Independent Arbitration Committee, Austria (USK). In addition, the Independent Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) publicly disclosed the athlete's name, violations, and suspension period on its website.
Ćapeta focused on two main aspects of the given issue. Firstly, Ćapeta established that the USK qualifies as a 'court or tribunal,' within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU. Secondly, Ćapeta argued that the GDPR may not apply in these circumstances, because anti-doping rules primarily serve the social and educational aspects of sports, not the economic ones. Ćapeta came to conclusion, that without even an indirect link between the anti-doping policies and EU law, the GDPR cannot regulate such processing activities.
As an alternative perspective, Ćapeta proposed that the GDPR allows the processing of personal data without need for any individualized proportionality assessment when there's a predefined preventive context. That’s why Ćapeta concluded, that the interference with the rights of professional athletes brought about by public disclosure can be justified by the preventive aim of deterring young athletes from committing doping offences and of informing relevant stakeholders.
In Ćapeta’s opinion, only offline publication would bypass the obligation to inform the public properly and that in today's digital age, internet-based publication is essential to meet the obligation of informing the public effectively. That’s why Ćapeta concluded, that disclosing the athlete’s name, the anti-doping rule violation at issue and the suspension imposed on her on the publicly available website of a national anti-doping authority is, during the time of her suspension, adequate and necessary for achieving the preventive function of deterrence and informing stakeholders.
It's important to note that the Ćapeta’s opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice and that it is their role to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible. The Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case. Judgment will be given at a later date.
Source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62022CC0115
Article provided by INPLP member: Miroslav Chlipala (BCH Advokáti Chlipala, Slovakia)
Discover more about the INPLP and the INPLP-Members
Dr. Tobias Höllwarth (Managing Director INPLP)
News Archiv
- Alle zeigen
- Jänner 2025
- Dezember 2024
- November 2024
- Oktober 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- Juli 2024
- Juni 2024
- Mai 2024
- April 2024
- März 2024
- Februar 2024
- Jänner 2024
- Dezember 2023
- November 2023
- Oktober 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- Juli 2023
- Juni 2023
- Mai 2023
- April 2023
- März 2023
- Februar 2023
- Jänner 2023
- Dezember 2022
- November 2022
- Oktober 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- Juli 2022
- Mai 2022
- April 2022
- März 2022
- Februar 2022
- November 2021
- September 2021
- Juli 2021
- Mai 2021
- April 2021
- Dezember 2020
- November 2020
- Oktober 2020
- Juni 2020
- März 2020
- Dezember 2019
- Oktober 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- Juli 2019
- Juni 2019
- Mai 2019
- April 2019
- März 2019
- Februar 2019
- Jänner 2019
- Dezember 2018
- November 2018
- Oktober 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- Juli 2018
- Juni 2018
- Mai 2018
- April 2018
- März 2018
- Februar 2018
- Dezember 2017
- November 2017
- Oktober 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- Juli 2017
- Juni 2017
- Mai 2017
- April 2017
- März 2017
- Februar 2017
- November 2016
- Oktober 2016
- September 2016
- Juli 2016
- Juni 2016
- Mai 2016
- April 2016
- März 2016
- Februar 2016
- Jänner 2016
- Dezember 2015
- November 2015
- Oktober 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- Juli 2015
- Juni 2015
- Mai 2015
- April 2015
- März 2015
- Februar 2015
- Jänner 2015
- Dezember 2014
- November 2014
- Oktober 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- Juli 2014
- Juni 2014
- Mai 2014
- April 2014
- März 2014
- Februar 2014
- Jänner 2014
- Dezember 2013
- November 2013
- Oktober 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- Juli 2013
- Juni 2013
- Mai 2013
- April 2013
- März 2013
- Februar 2013
- Jänner 2013
- Dezember 2012
- November 2012
- Oktober 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- Juli 2012
- Juni 2012
- Mai 2012
- April 2012
- März 2012
- Februar 2012
- Jänner 2012
- Dezember 2011
- November 2011
- Oktober 2011
- September 2011
- Juli 2011
- Juni 2011
- Mai 2011
- April 2011
- März 2011
- Februar 2011
- Jänner 2011
- November 2010
- Oktober 2010
- September 2010
- Juli 2010