Data Protection Sets Limits on the "Online Doping Shame List"
On 14 July 2026, the Grand Chamber of the CJEU delivered a landmark judgment in Case C-474/24 concerning the protection of personal data in the field of sports law. The Court confirmed that the automatic online publication of personal data relating to athletes sanctioned for doping offences is not permissible without an individual assessment of the specific circumstances.
The proceedings originated from complaints brought by four professional athletes represented by attorney-at-law Dr. Johannes Öhlböck, LL.M.
Background: Publication on the NADA Suspension List
Under the Austrian Anti-Doping Federal Act (ADBG), the websites of NADA Austria and the Austrian Anti-Doping Legal Committee (ÖADR) publish, among other information:
- the athlete's name,
- the sport concerned,
- the duration of the suspension, and
- the reason for the sanction.
The four athletes represented by Dr. Öhlböck argued that this publication infringed the GDPR. The Austrian Federal Administrative Court therefore referred several questions concerning the interpretation of EU law to the CJEU.
Advocate General Had Already Supported the Athletes' Position
In September 2025, Advocate General Dean Spielmann had already expressed serious doubts about the compatibility of the Austrian legislation with the GDPR in his extensive Opinion. In particular, he considered that unrestricted publication on the internet would generally not be necessary and that less intrusive alternatives—such as disclosure limited to the competent authorities and relevant sports organisations—would be available.
CJEU: A Proportionality Assessment Is Mandatory
The CJEU has now confirmed that the GDPR precludes national legislation providing for the automatic publication of personal data without taking into account the circumstances of the individual case.
The Court acknowledged that elite athletes with a certain public profile bear particular responsibilities. However, it also emphasised that publication of personal information—particularly where it remains accessible beyond the duration of the suspension—may constitute a disproportionate interference with the fundamental rights to privacy and protection of personal data.
The Court held that the GDPR continues to apply fully in the anti-doping context. In particular, it is necessary to assess:
- whether publication is genuinely necessary to achieve the intended objectives;
- whether less intrusive measures are available; and
- whether publication is proportionate, taking into account both its scope and duration.
Furthermore, an athlete must have the opportunity to lodge a preventive complaint with the competent data protection authority where there are concrete indications that publication concerning that athlete is imminent or expected in the near future. The judgment therefore significantly strengthens the protection of personal data in sports law.
Significance Beyond Austria
The decision extends well beyond Austria. While the World Anti-Doping Code applies internationally, the GDPR applies throughout the European Union.
Publication of doping sanctions is one of the central enforcement mechanisms within the international anti-doping system operated by WADA and national anti-doping organisations. The CJEU has now made clear that legitimate objectives such as transparency, deterrence and safeguarding the integrity of sport do not override the requirements of the GDPR.
Instead, a careful balancing exercise must always be carried out between the interests of clean sport and the fundamental rights of the athletes concerned. The judgment is likely to influence both future national anti-doping legislation and the continued development of international anti-doping law.
Assessment
The CJEU's judgment represents an important milestone for data protection in sport.
It does not mean that doping violations must remain confidential. Rather, the Court requires public authorities and anti-doping organisations to determine, before publication takes place, whether the serious interference with an athlete's fundamental rights is genuinely necessary and proportionate in the specific circumstances.
In the age of search engines and permanently accessible online archives, publication may continue to affect an athlete's professional and private life long after the suspension has expired. The CJEU has now expressly recognised this concern.
The current Austrian Anti-Doping Federal Act does not provide for the required proportionality assessment. In future cases involving doping sanctions, this assessment will therefore have to be carried out directly by the Austrian Anti-Doping Legal Committee (ÖADR) and, where applicable, the Independent Arbitration Commission (USK). The same applies to the athlete's right to seek preventive protection where publication is imminent. At present, Austrian law contains no detailed procedural rules governing these issues.
Sports Law Attorney
Dr. Johannes Öhlböck, LL.M. advises athletes, sports clubs and sports federations on all aspects of sports law and anti-doping law and represents clients before national authorities and courts, including proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union.