Publishing athlete names after doping violations: What AG Spielmann's opinion means for sports organisations

When can sports organisations publish the names of athletes sanctioned for anti-doping violations without violating data protection law? Advocate General Spielmann's recent opinion, on 25 September 2025, in the NADA Austria and Others case (C-474/24) provides detailed guidance, but also raises significant questions.

The case is currently pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This case adds to an already eventful summer before the CJEU, following the Court’s recent ruling in the Seraing case^[1] on 1 August 2025. Unlike the Seraing case which concerned forced arbitration, the NADA Austria case addresses the publication of amongst  others things, the name of athletes and the duration of their ineligibility periods following anti-doping rule violation in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

What makes this case interesting is the legal interplay between the mandatory publication regime of disciplinary sanctions under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADA Code), respectively – in this specific case – under the Austrian Federal Law on Anti-Doping, the classification of disciplinary regulations as criminal or quasi-criminal provisions and the protection of athletes’ personal data balanced against sporting bodies’ interests in maintaining clean competition.

This case is arguably the first test for the treatment of personal data in the publication of the disciplinary sanctions in sport and will likely set a precedent for similar cases. A careful analysis of the facts and the Advocate General’s opinion is warranted, while it should be noted that the matter remains pending a final ruling by the CJEU. On this basis, this article discusses the most relevant findings of the Advocate General’s opinion:

• The NADA Austria case
  • Legal framework in question
  • Factual background to the dispute
  • Previous reference to CJEU on NADA Austria’s publication practice
• The applicability of the GDPR to anti-doping provisions
  • The economic activity debate
  • The Advocate General’s application of Article 16 of the TFEU
  • The Meca-Medina precedent
• Information as health data under Article 9 of the GDPR
  • The health data test under Article 9
  • Comparison with AG Capeta's approach
• Relationship between doping provisions and criminal law
  • The Engel criteria framework
  • The Platini precedent and penalty assessment
  • The Advocate General's conclusion
• Processing of sportspersons’ personal data in compliance with the principle of proportionality
  • Legitimate objectives for publication
  • Case-by-case assessment requirement
  • Necessity test
  • Proportionality stricto sensu (in the strictest sense)
• Conclusion