The online publication of the names of professional athletes who have
infringed anti-doping rules may be compatible with EU law

22 July 2026

The Court of Justice specifies that the Member States may, in principle, make provision for publication on the internet of the names of professional athletes who have infringed anti-doping rules, the duration of the ban imposed on them and the reasons for that ban. Nevertheless, such legislation must comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It follows, in particular, that the entity responsible for the publication must be able to weigh up the interests at issue prior to it. Furthermore, the publication must observe the principle of proportionality, in particular as regards the length of the publication period.

In addition, any athlete concerned must be able to lodge, as a preventive measure, a complaint with the competent data protection authority where there are specific indications that a publication concerning him or her is imminent or will take place in the near future.

The Austrian Anti-Doping Legal Committee (the ÖADR) and the Austrian Independent Arbitration Committee (the USK) banned four athletes from participating in national and international competitions for a fixed period or for life, on account of their having infringed anti-doping rules.

Pursuant to the Austrian legislation, such bans are to be published on the website of the Austrian anti-doping agency (NADA Austria). That publication is to include the first name and surname of the athlete concerned, the sports discipline practised, the infringement of the anti-doping rules committed, the sanction imposed, and the start and end dates of that sanction. The ÖADR is also to publish, on its own website, those data as well as the name of the prohibited substance in question.

The four athletes have challenged before the Austrian Federal Administrative Court the publication on the websites in question of their names and the sport concerned. They have submitted, inter alia, that the information published is covered by the concept of ‘data concerning health’, whose processing is prohibited in principle, as well as that of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences, whose processing may only be carried out under the control of official authority. Furthermore, they have asserted that the undifferentiated publication system provided for in Austria is incompatible with the GDPR.

The Federal Administrative Court has put questions to the Court of Justice in that regard. The Court of Justice answered, first of all, that the information published is not covered, in principle, by the concept of ‘data concerning health’, unless reference is made in the publication to the name or category of the prohibited method or substance concerned by that infringement and that reference, combined with other information concerning the data subject, is capable of revealing, even indirectly, by means of an intellectual operation involving collation or deduction, information relating to the past, current or future physical or mental health status of that person.