Protection of personal data, the study by two researchers from the Dirpolis Institute cited in the conclusions of Advocate General Spielmann in a preliminary ruling case before the EU Court of Justice
An important recognition for the legal research carried out by the Dirpolis Institute (Law, Politics, Development) of the Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies in Pisa has come from the Court of Justice of the European Union. The conclusions presented by Advocate General Dean Spielmann in a preliminary ruling case cite a study presented by two researchers from Lider Lab, Francesca Gennari and Federica Casarosa, focusing on the sharing of health data and the implications of its classification as personal data.
The case of a group of Austrian athletes
The case in question (C-474/24) concerns the applicability or otherwise of the personal data protection regulation to the case of a group of Austrian athletes who challenged the publication on the website of the national anti-doping authority of their names, with reference to the violation committed, the substance used, the sanction and the sport practised.
According to the athletes, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) should have been applied because their first and last names are effectively personal data and, in addition, the data relating to the sanction and the substance should have been considered personal data relating to health. For the anti-doping organisation, on the other hand, sporting activity falls outside the scope of European Union law and, therefore, this regulation should not have been applied.
The conclusions of Advocate General Spielmann
In his detailed opinion, Advocate General Spielmann ruled that EU law is also applicable in this area and addressed the concept of “personal data relating to health” in depth. In this context, he cited the study by Gennari and Casarosa, which analyses how some seemingly neutral data (such as the number of steps taken each day as recorded by an app) can, when combined with other elements, become information that reveals sensitive aspects of a person's health.
The Advocate General takes up and develops this concept, emphasising that even non-health data in itself can take on a health-related nature if, when read in the context of other available data, it allows inferences to be made about a person's state of health. This interpretative approach, consistent with the reflections contained in the article by the two researchers from the Dirpolis Institute, contributes to the definition of “indirect health data”, potentially subject to the enhanced rules provided for by the GDPR.
The Advocate General's conclusions are not binding on the Court, but in most cases they are followed by the judges in their final ruling. The citation of the study by Gennari and Casarosa therefore represents a significant contribution to the European debate on the protection of personal data in a sensitive area such as anti-doping and the protection of athletes' fundamental rights.
