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)

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruling of 18th January, 2018 in the joined cases FNASS v France and Longo v France, aims at clarifying various aspects of a surveillance regime imposed on certain athletes for the purpose of conducting doping controls. Under so-called ‘whereabouts requirements’, certain athletes must be available for testing at any location on a 24/7/365 basis. To this effect, a series of surveillance measures are required under standards emanating from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Their ‘integration’ into French national law (not ‘transposition’, as WADA is an NGO) had been challenged by a group of athletes’ trade unions (Fédération Nationale des Associations et Syndicats de Sportifs) (FNASS v France) as well as by an individual athlete aggrieved by the application of ‘whereabouts’ rules (Longo v France). Because the ECtHR did not find a violation of Art. 8 ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), WADA, anti-doping organisations and sports organisations have seen this judgment as a victory for their vision for anti-doping policies and practices. The judgment deals almost exclusively with the offline aspects of surveillance, however, while it is nearly silent on data protection issues, although these continue being discussed controversially. As such, the case is also a textbook illustration of the distinction between private life and data protection.