According to the ECHR, the location system for athletes does not violate article 8 of the CESDH

scpa BERTRAND
18.01.18 00:17 Comment (s)
ECHR, the athlete tracking system does not violate article 8 of the CESDH

The European Court of Human Rights considers, in a judgment n ° 48151 / 11, dated 18 January 2018, that the French State, by imposing a system of localization to the sportsmen, does not violate the article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

Definition of the right to respect for private and family life according to the CESDH

Article 8 of the CESDH, entitled "Right to respect for private and family life", provides that:


"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 


2. There can be interference by a public authority in the exercise of this right only insofar as such interference is provided for by law and constitutes a measure which, in a democratic society, is necessary for security. national, public safety, the economic well-being of the country, the defense of order and the prevention of criminal offenses, the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of other".

Mandatory localization of athletes before European justice

Doping: compulsory localization of athletes before European justice

However, on April 14, 2010, the Government issued an ordinance n ° 2010-379 relating to the health of athletes and bringing the sports code into line with the principles of the World Anti-Doping Code.


This ordinance provides, among other things, that "are required to provide precise and up-to-date information on their whereabouts, allowing the carrying out of the checks referred to in Article L. 232-5 the athletes, constituting the target group, appointed for one year by the French Anti-Doping Agency".


It therefore obliges "Athletes to give a slot of one hour per day during which they make themselves available for doping controls, at the place of their is".

Or book a video appointment online

For sports unions, the location obligation allowing random checks is contrary to article 8 of the CESDH

The National Federation of Sports Associations and Unions (FNASS), the National Union of Rugby Players (Proval), the National Union of Professional Footballers (UNFP), the Association of Professional Handball Players (AJPH) and the National Basketball Union (SNB), as well as ninety-nine applicants as professional handball, football, rugby and basketball players considered that the location ordinance allowing random checks was contrary to Article 8 of the CESDH.

In one communicated, the Court recalls, first of all, that doping is a public health imperative: ""Health protection" is included in relevant international and national texts that present anti-doping as a health concern".

It then operates a balance of interests and considers that "As for the search for a balance, the Court does not underestimate the impact that the whereabouts obligations have on the applicants' private life. It thus accepts the assertion of the applicants who consider that they are subject to obligations to which the majority of the working population is not bound. However, it notes, on the one hand, that the tracking system has the merit of setting a legal framework for the fight against doping which cannot be underestimated from the point of view of the guarantees of the rights of the athletes concerned. It considers, on the other hand, that if the tracking device is certainly only one aspect of the fight against doping, those concerned must take their share of the constraints inherent in the measures necessary to fight against an evil which is particularly rampant in the community. high level competition. It also considers that, taking into account the fact that the possible localization at their home is done at their request and according to a determined time slot, the doping controls are different from those placed under the supervision of the judicial authority and intended for the search for 'offenses or likely to give rise to seizures. Finally, it considers that the applicants and the applicant have not shown that checks limited to the training sites and respecting the moments dedicated to private life would be sufficient to achieve the objectives set by the national authorities, given the developments in the methods of training. doping and short periods of time during which prohibited substances can be detected".

For the ECHR, a fair balance has been found

The Court concludes that "the respondent State struck a fair balance between the various interests at stake and there was no violation of Article 8 of the Convention".

Judgment of the ECHR on the location of athletes in the fight against doping
Note that this judgment is not final since in accordance with the provisions of Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, any party may request the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber of the Court within three months from the date of its pronouncement.

On the same theme, see the following articles:

France's compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code

[24.02.2021]

Application of anti-doping rules: the distinction between national and international athletes

[20.02.2020]

scpa BERTRAND