It was the ECJ's turn

Dispute over the naming of doped athletes

An Austrian athlete wants to keep a doping scandal out of the public eye and has turned to the Independent Arbitration Commission. Which in turn asked the ECJ. Wrongly, the ECJ ruled. Contrary to what its name implies, the commission is not independent.

An Austrian athlete was stripped of all her titles, medals, prizes, entry fees and prize money from May 10, 2015 - she had violated the anti-doping rules. But what she still wanted to keep: Anonymity. The athlete applied to the Austrian Independent Arbitration Commission (USK) for her name, the violations committed and the sanctions imposed not to be published.

Commission cannot be classified as a court
The USK wanted to know from the European Court of Justice whether this is compatible with the General Data Protection Regulation. The Court has now ruled that such a question to the ECJ by the Commission is inadmissible. This right is reserved to the courts of the member states.

Sports minister has his hand over the members
And this does not include the USK, which does not have the necessary independence. The Minister of Sport can dismiss commission members prematurely and alone "for important reasons". "There is therefore no guarantee that the members of the USK are protected from external pressure that could cast doubt on their independence", the European Court of Justice stated in a press release. "An institution that is not independent violates the right of affected athletes to a fair trial", says lawyer Johannes Öhlböck, who is representing the athlete.

The National Anti-Doping Commission NADA takes note of the Supreme Court's decision: "Today's decision makes it clear that EU law and national regulations must be observed in this context. In accordance with these regulations, NADA Austria will therefore continue to publish anti-doping violations." 

Federal Administrative Court now decides 
However, the last word has not yet been spoken on the issue of naming names: Now that the ECJ has rejected the Commission's question, the Federal Administrative Court must now decide on this sensitive issue. Proceedings are already pending there.