Statutory provision as a legal base for data transfers to third countries for anti-doping purposes, under EU and German law

  • Jacob KornbeckEmail author


Whenever (national) anti-doping organisations ((N)ADOs) based in the European Union (EU) wish to transfer personal data related to athletes to their partners in “third countries” (countries outside the EU), a set of specific and exacting legal requirements must be met. One of these requirements is the demonstration of a valid legal base. While a previous article focussed on the use of consent, this article weighs the advantages and drawbacks of statutory provision, under EU and German law.


Anti-doping Data protection International data transfers Lawfulness European Union Germany 



  1. Bender D (2016) Having mishandled safe harbor, will the CJEU do better with privacy shield? A US perspective. Int Data Privacy Law 6(2):117–138Google Scholar
  2. Blitz R (2007) Platini: ‘we need to go where football has to go’. Financ Times. Accessed 20 May 2007
  3. Bundesministerium des Innern (2013) Bonn, den 10. Oktober 2013. Expertengespräch zur Dopinggesetzgebung am 26. September 2013 im Bundesministerium des Innern, Bonn.
  4. CK Consulting & STICHTING VU-VUmc (2017) The monitoring systems of sports betting and warning mechanisms between public and private actors. BETMONITALERT. HOME/2014/PPXX/AG/SPBX. May 2017.
  5. de Hon O (2016) Striking the right balance. Effectiveness of anti-doping policies. Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University.
  6. Deutscher Bundestag (2014) Das Dopingkontrollsystem in Deutschland. Rechtlich-regulative Grundlagen und Reformoptionen. WD 10—3000—084/14. Accessed 03 Nov 2014
  7. Deutscher Bundestag (2015) Drucksache 18/4898. 13.05.2015. Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung. Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Bekämpfung von Doping im Sport.
  8. Docksey C (2014) Articles 7 and 8 of the EU charter: two distinct fundamental rights. In: Grosjean J (ed) Les enjeux européens et mondiaux de la protection des données personnelles. Larcier, Brussels, pp 63–89Google Scholar
  9. Docksey C (2016) Four fundamental rights: finding the balance. Int Data Privacy Law 6(3):195–209Google Scholar
  10. dpa (2012) WADA befürchtet Schaden durch EU-Datenschutzreform, 21.05.2012, 20:09 Uhr, dpa.
  11. dpa (2014) De Maizière: Anti-Doping-Gesetz gut für Olympia-Chancen. dpa—Mi., 12. Nov,
  12. Duval A (2016) The BGH’s Pechstein decision: a surrealist ruling. Asser Int Sports Law Blog. Accessed 8 June 2016
  13. Efverström A, Ahmadi N, Hoff D, Bäckström Å (2016) Anti-doping and legitimacy: an international survey of elite athletes’ perceptions. Int J Sport Policy Polit 8(3):491–514Google Scholar
  14. EOC EU Office (2015) The EOC EU Office discusses the data protection reform with EU institutions. Created on Friday, 17 Apr 2015 00:00:00.
  15. Faber K, Sjerps M (2009) Anti-doping researchers should conform to certain statistical standards from forensic science. Sci Justice 49(3):214–215Google Scholar
  16. Figura L (2009) Doping: Zwischen Freiheitsrecht und notwendigem Verbot. Meyer & Meyer, AachenGoogle Scholar
  17. Flueckiger C (2008) Dopage, santé des sportifs professionnels et protection des données médicales. Schulthess, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. García B, Meier HE (2017) Global sport power Europe? The efficacy of the European Union in global sport regulation. J Common Mark Stud 55(4):850–870Google Scholar
  19. Geeraert A, Drieskens E (2017) Normative market Europe: the EU as a force for good in international sports governance? J Eur Integr 39(1):79–94Google Scholar
  20. Gola P, Klug C, Körffer B, Schomerus R (2015) BDSG Bundesdatenschutzgesetz Kommentar, 12th edn. C.H.Beck, MunichGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodman S (2018) A game changer in the personal data protection in the EU. Mich State Univ Int Law Rev. Accessed 29 Jan 2018
  22. Greenleaf G (2012) The influence of European data privacy standards outside Europe: implications for globalization of Convention 108. Int Data Privacy Law 2(2):68–92Google Scholar
  23. Greenleaf G (2018) 2017–2018 Further update to Graham Greenleaf’s Asian data privacy laws—trade and human rights perspectives. Available at SSRN: Accessed 15 Nov 2018
  24. Hecker A (2017) Anti-doping Gesetz. Strafbefehl für zwei Ringer. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Accessed 11 Jan 2017
  25. Herber TJ (2017) Datenschutzrechtliche Grenzen des deutschen Dopingkontrollsystems Überprüfung der deutschen Anti-Doping Kontrollpraxis unter Berücksichtigung von Handlungsalternativen. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit (DuD) 41(12):735–739Google Scholar
  26. Hermann A, Henneberg M (2014) Anti-doping systems in sports are doomed to fail: a probability and cost analysis. J Sports Med Doping Stud 4(5):1–12Google Scholar
  27. HM Government, Department for Digital, Media, Culture and Sport (2017) Review of criminalisation of doping in sport. Accessed Oct 2017
  28. Houlihan B, Garcia B (2012) The use of legislation in relation to controlling the production, movement, importation, distribution and supply of performance-enhancing drugs in sport (PEDS). Loughborough University: WADA-UNESCO. Accessed 1 Aug 2019
  29. Jahn M (2018) Wir haben alles. Außer Strafverfahren. Erste Praxiserfahrungen mit der Rundumstrafbarkeit nach dem Anti-Doping-Gesetz in Deutschland. In: Hoven E, Kubiciel M (eds) Korruption im Sport. Nomos (Schriftenreihe zum deutschen, europäischen und internationalen Wirtschaftsstrafrecht; 35), Baden-Baden, pp 117–124Google Scholar
  30. Kayser B (2018) Ethical aspects of doping and anti-doping: in search of an alternative policy. Ph.D. thesis, KU Leuven. Accessed 1 Aug 2019
  31. Kommers DP, Miller RA (1997) The constitutional jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany, 2nd edn. Duke University Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  32. Koops BJ (2014) The trouble with European data protection law. Int Data Privacy Law 4(4):250–261Google Scholar
  33. Kornbeck J (2013) The naked spirit of sport: a framework for revisiting the system of bans and justifications in the world anti-doping code. Sport Ethics Philos 7(3):313–330Google Scholar
  34. Kornbeck J (2015a) Private regulation and public trust: why increased transparency could strengthen the fight against doping. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin 66(5):121–127Google Scholar
  35. Kornbeck J (2015b) The stamina of the Bosman legacy: the European Union and the revision of the world anti-doping code (2011–13). Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 22(2):283–304Google Scholar
  36. Kornbeck J (2016) Transferring athletes’ personal data from the EU to third countries for anti-doping purposes: applying Recital 112 GDPR in the post-Schrems era. Int Data Privacy Law 6(4):291–298Google Scholar
  37. Kornbeck J (2017a) Athlete consent as a legal base for data transfers to third countries for anti-doping purposes, under EU and German law. Int Sports Law J 17(1–2):68–85Google Scholar
  38. Kornbeck J (2017b) Einwilligung oder gesetzliche Regelung? Die Wahl der Rechtsgrundlage bei Datenübermittlungen der NADA Deutschland in Drittländer zu Anti-Doping-Zwecken gemäß EU-Datenschutz-Generalverordnung. Datenschutz Nachrichten 40(1):17–30Google Scholar
  39. Kornbeck J (2018) An exemplary illustration of the distinction between private life and data protection (Art. 7–8 CFR): the ECtHR’s joint decision in FNASS v France and Longo v France (Art. 8 ECHR). J Data Prot Privacy 2(2):116–130Google Scholar
  40. Kornbeck J, Kayser B (2018) Do public perception and the ‘spirit of sport’ justify criminalisation of doping? A reply to Claire Sumner. Int Sports Law J. Accessed 05 March 2018
  41. Kuner C (2015) Extraterritoriality and regulation of international data transfers in EU data protection law. Int Data Privacy Law 5(4):235–245Google Scholar
  42. Kuner C, Jerker D, Svantesson B, Cate FH, Lynskey O, Millard C, Loideain NN (2017) The GDPR as a chance to break down borders. Int Data Privacy Law 7(4):231–232Google Scholar
  43. Kuschewsky K (2014) European Union. In: Kuschewsky K (ed) Data protection and privacy: jurisdictional comparisons, 2nd edn. Thomson Reuters, London, pp 255–289Google Scholar
  44. Lambertz P (2015) Problematische Namensveröffentlichungsregelung in Dopingfällen gemäss WADA-Code. Causa Sport 2015(4):369–373Google Scholar
  45. Lehner M (2015) Fehlende Verfassungskonformität des geplanten Anti-Doping-Gesetzes. Causa Sport 2015(2):130–135Google Scholar
  46. LfD & ULD [Landesbeauftragte für Datenschutz Rheinland-Pfalz und Schleswig-Holstein] (2011) Positionspapier des Landesbeauftragten für den Datenschutz Rheinland Pfalz und des Unabhängigen Landeszentrums für Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein (ULD). Mainz und Kiel, 26. Juli 2011. Datenschutz und Dopingbekämpfung, Accessed 21 March 2019
  47. LfD & ULD [Landesbeauftragte für Datenschutz Rheinland-Pfalz und Schleswig-Holstein] (2014) Stellungnahme der Datenschutzbeauftragten der Länder Rheinland-Pfalz und Schleswig-Holstein zum Referentenentwurf des Bundesministeriums der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz und des Bundesministeriums des Innern Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Bekämpfung von Doping im Sport (nicht veröffentlichte Version, Bearbeitungsstand 01.09.2014).
  48. Ludwig K (2015) ARGE Sportrecht des DAV, Frankfurt a.M., 4./5. September 2015. Causa Sport 2015(3):334–335Google Scholar
  49. Maennig W (2014) Inefficiency of the anti-doping system: cost reduction proposals. Subst Use Misuse 49:1201–1205Google Scholar
  50. Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport [The Netherlands] (2016) Report on EU anti-doping conference, 15 June 2016 in Amsterdam: “The fight against doping in the EU legal framework: balance between effective anti-doping measures and fundamental rights.” Organised by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport in the context of the EU Presidency of the Netherlands.
  51. Mortsiefer L (2010) Datenschutz im Anti-Doping-Kampf. Gardez, BonnGoogle Scholar
  52. Moston S, Engelberg T, Skinner J (2015) Athletes’ and coaches’ perceptions of deterrents to performance-enhancing drug use. Int J Sport Policy Polit 7(4):623–636Google Scholar
  53. Nakashima E, Warrick J (2013) For NSA chief, terrorist threat drives passion to ‘collect it all’. Washington Post. Accessed July 14
  54. Neuendorf S (2015) Datenschutzrechtliche Konflikte im Anti-Doping-System. Am Beispiel des Anti-Doping Administration and Management Systems ADAMS. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  55. Niewalda J (2011) Dopingkontrollen im Konflikt mit allgemeinem Persönlichkeitsrecht und Datenschutz. Duncker & Humblodt, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  56. Nolte M (2010a) Datenschutzrechtliche Grenzen von Anti-Doping-Meldepflichten. Causa Sport 2010(4):309–316Google Scholar
  57. Nolte M (2010b) Anti-Doping-Meldepflichten im Lichte des Datenschutzrechts. In: Deutsche Vereinigung für Sportrecht (ed) Neue Bedrohungen für die Persönlichkeitsrechte von Sportlern. Boorberg, Stuttgart, pp 59–73Google Scholar
  58. Paal BP, Pauly DA, Ernst S, Frenzel EM, Gräber T, Hennemann M, Körffer B, Martini M, Nolden C (2018) Datenschutz-Grundverordnung Bundesdatenschutzgesetz: DS-GVO BDSG 2. Aufl. Beck, MunichGoogle Scholar
  59. Padova Y (2019) Is the right to be forgotten a universal, regional, or ‘glocal’ right? Int Data Privacy Law. Accessed 25 Jan
  60. Parensen A (1998) Die Fußball-Bundesliga und das Bosman-Urteil. In: Tokarski W (ed) EU-Recht und Sport. Aachen, Meyer & Meyer, pp 70–150Google Scholar
  61. Parzeller M, Prittwitz C et al (2009) Rechtsvergleich der strafrechtlichen Normen und der strafprozessualen Verfolgung des Dopings im Leistungs- und Spitzensport in Deutschland, Italien, Frankreich. Schweiz und Spanien. BISp-Jahrbuch 10:315–326Google Scholar
  62. PFPDT [Préposé fédéral à la protection des données et à la transparence] [Suisse] (2013) 20e Rapport d’activités 2012/2013. PFPDT, Berne.
  63. Ryan K (2015) Doping and anti-doping: the excesses of enterprise and the tyranny of transparency. Int J Sport Policy Polit 7(4):637–653Google Scholar
  64. Sautner J (2019) Anti-Doping-Recht. Dopingbekämpfung im Lichte der Bundesverfassung und der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention. Verlag Österreich (SPRINT. Schriftenreihe zum Sportrecht an der Universität Innsbruck; 13), ViennaGoogle Scholar
  65. Schaar P (2015) Globale Überwachung und digitale Souveränität. Zeitschrift für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik 8(4):447–459Google Scholar
  66. Schültke A (2016) Beschwerde vor dem Bundesverfassungsgericht. Ist das Anti-Doping-Gesetz verfassungswidrig? Deutschlandfunk, 20.03.2016.
  67. Simitis S (1984) Die informationelle Selbstbestimmung—Grundbedingung einer verfassungskonformen Informationsordnung. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 8:398–405Google Scholar
  68. Simitis S (ed) (2011) Bundesdatenschutzgesetz. Kommentar. 7. Auflage. Nomos 2014, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  69. Sloot B (2018) Privacy from a legal perspective. In: Sloot B, Groot A (eds) The handbook of privacy studies. Amsterdam University Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  70. Sloot B, Paun M, Leenes R, McNally P, Ypma P (2017) Anti-doping and data protection: an evaluation of the anti-doping laws and practices in the EU Member States in light of the General Data Protection Regulation. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Accessed 1 Aug 2019
  71. Steiner U (2016) Die Bekämpfung der Sportmanipulation mit den Mitteln des Strafrechts aus verfassungsrechtlicher Sicht. In: Württembergischer Fußballverband (ed) 40 Jahre wfv-Sportrechtsseminare: 1975–2015. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 17–29Google Scholar
  72. Sumner C (2017) The spirit of sport: the case for criminalisation of doping in the UK. Int Sports Law J 16(3–4):217–227Google Scholar
  73. Swire PS, Ahmad K, McQuay T (2012) Foundations of information privacy and data protection: a survey of global concepts, laws and practice. IAPP, PortsmouthGoogle Scholar
  74. T.M.C. Asser Instituut (2010) The implementation of the WADA Code in the European Union. Report commissioned by the Flemish Minister responsible for Sport in view of the Belgian Presidency of the European Union in the second half of 2010. T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague. Accessed 1 Aug 2019
  75. Taylor M (2015) The EU’s human rights obligations in relation to its data protection laws with extraterritorial effect. Int Data Privacy Law 5(4):246–256Google Scholar
  76. Tokarski W, Steinbach D (2001) Spuren. Sportpolitik und Sportstrukturen in der Europäischen Union. Meyer & Meyer, AachenGoogle Scholar
  77. van Dijk M, van de Beek A (2017) The Dutch anti-doping policy implementation bill: privacy concerns. World Sports Advocate 13–16Google Scholar
  78. Viret M (2016) Evidence in anti-doping at the intersection of science and law. Asser Press, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  79. Waddington I (2010) Surveillance and control in sport: a sociologist looks at the WADA whereabouts system. Int J Sport Policy Polit 2(3):255–274Google Scholar
  80. Weatherill S (2017) Principles and practice in EU sports law. Oxford University Press (Oxford European Union Law Library), OxfordGoogle Scholar
  81. Wedde P (2011) Rechtsgutachten zum Thema „Datenschutzrechtliche Bewertung der Melde- und Kontrollpflichten im Rahmen von Anti-Dopingprogrammen, die die von SP.IN vertretenen Athleten betreffen“. Erstattet von Prof. Dr. Peter Wedde. Eppstein/Ts., 5. September 2011.
  82. Whitman JQ (2004) The two western cultures of privacy: dignity versus liberty. Yale Law J 113:1151–1221Google Scholar
  83. Wood J (2016) Why malta is blocking a European effort to create match-fixing prevention standards. Sep 23, 2016 07:22 PDT.

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Instituut 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European CommissionBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations