It was the turn of the Court of Justice: a dispute over the naming of doped athletes

Date:

An Austrian athlete wants to keep a doping scandal out of the public eye and turned to the Independent Arbitration Commission. The Court in turn asks this. He decides wrongly. Because the committee is – contrary to what the name suggests – not independent.

On May 10, 2015, an Austrian athlete was stripped of all titles, medals, prizes, participation and prize money she had won – violating anti-doping rules. But what she wanted to preserve: anonymity. The athlete requested the Austrian Independent Arbitration Commission (USK) not to publish her name, the violations committed and the sanctions imposed.

The Commission cannot be regarded as a court
The USK wanted to know from the European Court of Justice whether this could be brought into line with the General Data Protection Regulation. It now decides that such a question to the Commission’s Court of Justice is inadmissible. This right is withheld from the courts of the Member States.

Minister of Sports has his hand over the members
And the USK is not included in this, the required independence is not given. The Minister of Sports can dismiss committee members prematurely and only ‘for important reasons’. “There is therefore no guarantee that the members of the USK will be protected from external pressure that could cast doubt on their independence,” the European Court of Justice said in a statement. “An institution that is not independent violates the right of affected athletes to a fair trial,” said lawyer Johannes Öhlböck, who represents the athlete.

The National Anti-Doping Commission NADA notes the Supreme Court’s decision: “Today’s decision makes it clear that Union law and national regulations must be respected in this context. In accordance with these regulations, NADA Austria will continue to publish anti-doping violations.”

The Federal Administrative Court is now deciding
But the last word has not yet been spoken on the naming issue: after the ECJ rejected the Commission’s question, the Federal Administrative Court must now decide the sensitive issue. There is already a procedure underway in this regard.

Source: Krone

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Share post:

Subscribe

Popular

More like this
Related

Renovation needs – “Sketchy”: hard criticism of health files elga

The next construction site for black and red pink:...

Mattel Barbies hardly wears high hooks shoes

For decades, the Pop Barbie balanced on the ends...

“Massive collision” – Family father paid for an accident with his life

A terrible car-frontal collision in Fuschl am See (Salzburg)...