Rechtbank Haarlem
Sector civiel recht
July 24, 2009
159578 / KG ZA 09-404
ECLI:NL:RBHAA:2009:BJ3767
Related cases:
- ISR 2009 NWWB Decision Disciplinary Committee 2009064 T
June 29, 2009
- ISR 2009 NWWB Decision Appeal Committee 2009064 B
January 29, 2010
Facts
Athlete X filed for a preliminary relief proceeding with the Dutch Civil Court in Haarlem. He wants the sanction for a doping violation, a two year period of ineligibility, based on the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Netherlands Water Ski and Wakeboard Federation (Nederlandse Waterski en Wakeboard Bond, NWWB), to be annuled based on violation of his right of privacy.
History
The athlete had been selected for an out-of-competition doping test. Analysis of the A and B samples showed the prohibited substance nandrolone. The athlete used several prescribed medication as treatment for a serious condition he suffered. One medication was prescribed nandrolone, the other medication will not be mentioned because of privacy reasons. The medication nandrolone is the source of the positive test.
The NWWB doubts that the court has jurisdiction in this case, but the judge contradicts this. There is an urgent need for the athlete for a quick decision because he wants to take part in the national championship. There is no guaranty that the NWWB Appeal Committee or the Netherlands Institute for Sport Adjudication (Instituut voor Sportrechtspraak, ISR) can or will deliver a decision in time. The judge rules it has jurisdiction in this case.
The athlete has a disability but this disability has no consequences for the rules regarding the doping control. The judge notices that the athlete did not made any objection during the doping control how his personal data was handled. In the NWWB decision of 29 June 2009 the athlet's medical condition nor the other medication was mentioned. The judge finds that mentioning the name of the prohibited substance nandrolone as medicine in the NWWB decision does not violate the athlete's privacy. The assumption that the information mentioned in this case could be an indication for some medical specialists about the athlete's medical condition does not alter this.
Decision op 24 June 2009:
- The athlete's request is denied.
- The athlete has to bear the legal costs of the NWWB.
