(AGENPARL) – Thu 25 September 2025 PRESS RELEASE No 128/25
Luxembourg, 25 September 2025
Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-474/24 | NADA Austria and Others
Advocate General Spielmann: the publication on the internet of the name
of any professional athlete who has infringed the anti-doping rules is
contrary to EU law
The principle of proportionality requires account to be taken of the specific circumstances of each individual
Four professional athletes who infringed 1 the anti-doping rules challenge, 2 before an Austrian court, the fact that
their names, the sporting discipline concerned, the duration of their exclusion from sporting events and the reasons
for that exclusion 3 were or were going 4 to be published online, that is to say, on the websites of the Austrian
independent anti-doping agency (NADA Austria) 5 and the Austrian Anti-Doping Legal Committee (the ÖADR). 6
In Austria, such publication is provided for by law. It aims, first, to deter athletes from committing infringements of
the anti-doping rules and thus to prevent doping in sport. Second, it aims to prevent circumvention of the antidoping rules by informing all persons likely to sponsor or engage the athlete in question that he or she is
suspended.
The four athletes concerned submit that that publication contravenes the General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR). 7
In that context, the Austrian court asked 8 the Court of Justice to interpret the GDPR.
In his Opinion, formulated following an in-depth analysis of the wording, the context and the objectives of the
GDPR, 9 Advocate General Dean Spielmann has serious doubts as to the need for the publication at issue in the light
of the objectives pursued.
In his view, publishing the relevant name, but limited to the relevant bodies and sports federations, accompanied,
for example, by pseudonymised publication on the internet, would make it possible to achieve both those objectives
in a way that is less prejudicial to the protection of personal data and more consistent with the principle of data
minimisation.
Furthermore, the combination of the various elements of the publication (reference to a name, unlimited scope,
systematic and automatic nature of the publication) is liable, in certain circumstances, to result in an interference
with the personal data protection rights of the individuals concerned such that it does not meet the requirements of
a proper balancing of the different interests involved.
The Advocate General is therefore of the view that an obligation to publish personal data, such as that at
issue, is permissible only in so far as, having regard to the objectives of deterrence and avoidance of
circumvention of the anti-doping rules, it remains proportionate, in particular as regards the scope and
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
duration of publication, in the light of the specific circumstances at issue. It is for the Austrian court 10 to
determine whether that is the case.
NOTE: The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General
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.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which
have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of EU law or the
validity of an EU act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to
dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or
tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
The full text of the Opinion is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.
Stay Connected!
According to the findings of the ÖADR or the Austrian Independent Arbitration Committee (USK), see note 6.
After their applications to NADA Austria and to the ÖADR, and their complaints to the Austrian Data Protection Authority were unsuccessful.