Is The Obligation to Publish Anti-Doping Decisions A Violation Of The GDPR?

While sports lawyers are eagerly awaiting the ECJ’s decisions in the Superleague¹ and ISU² cases, the publication of the opinion of Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta in case C-115/22 on 14 September 2023 was met with only little response. This is surprising given the fact that it concerns an evergreen topic of sports law, namely the extent to which doping and data protection rules affect one another.

In the context of a preliminary ruling procedure, Advocate General Ćapeta essentially had to examine whether the practice of the Austrian Anti-Doping Authority (the NADA) to publish its anti-doping decisions on its website is compatible with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). What may seem like a rather straightforward question may have implications for the work of all European anti-doping organisations. In addition, the upcoming ECJ decision will be the first preliminary ruling dealing with a reference from a sports arbitral tribunal. All the more reason to take a close look at the Advocate General’s opinion.

This article examines the opinion, looking at

• The factual background of the case
• Key aspects of the Advocate General’s Opinion
  • The admissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling
  • The applicability of the GDRP in the present case
  • The compatibility of the duty to disclose with the GDPR
• The Advocate General’s opinion in the context of previous jurisprudence
• Key takeaways