Anti-Doping Sanctions & Data Protection Under EU Law: Insights from the NADA Cases

This article analyses the growing tension between transparency and data protection in the enforcement of anti-doping rules within the European Union. It compares two Opinions of the Advocates General before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) — Capeta (2023) and Spielmann (2025) — both addressing whether the public disclosure of sanctioned athletes’ data complies with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

At issue is whether mandatory publication of athletes’ names, suspension periods, and the reasons for sanctions constitutes lawful, proportionate, and necessary processing of personal data under the GDPR. The Opinions diverge sharply on several key questions:

Scope of the GDPR:

AG Spielmann adopts a broad interpretation, holding that anti-doping activities fall within the scope of EU law and thus are subject to the GDPR. AG Capeta takes the opposite view, asserting that sport lies outside EU legislative competence and therefore beyond the GDPR’s reach.

Classification of Doping Data:

Spielmann recognises that information revealing the use of prohibited substances may qualify as “data concerning health” under Article 9 GDPR, given its connection to biological testing. Capeta, by contrast, argues that such data merely indicate rule violations, not health conditions, and thus should not be classified as sensitive health data.

Public Disclosure and Proportionality:

Spielmann emphasises the need for a case-by-case proportionality assessment, warning that permanent online publication risks “digital stigmatisation” and may breach data minimisation principles. Capeta defends automatic publication, including via the internet, as necessary for deterrence and transparency, and consistent with democratic legislative balancing.

Institutional Responsibility:

For Spielmann, controllers (such as national anti-doping agencies) must ensure proportional processing, even when acting under legal obligations. Capeta considers that proportionality assessments rest with the legislature, not with individual agencies, to avoid discretion, inconsistency, and potential corruption.

The paper argues that these contrasting approaches reveal deeper fault lines in EU data protection law — particularly concerning the interplay between individual rights, state competence, and the governance of sport. The upcoming CJEU judgment in the NADA case is expected to clarify whether GDPR principles apply to national anti-doping systems and to what extent transparency can override privacy in pursuit of clean sport.

Beyond the EU, the ruling could have ripple effects through the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) framework. As EU-based national anti-doping organisations are bound by the GDPR, a stricter interpretation (as proposed by AG Spielmann) may compel changes to data-sharing practices within WADA’s global system (ADAMS), potentially triggering a “Brussels effect” in international sports governance.

https://www.rdes.it/RDES_2025_BASTIANON_doping_copyright.pdf

Stay informed with the latest legal developments at Global Law Experts