On 10 July 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued its ruling in Semenya v. Switzerland, a case that could reshape how international sport arbitration is approached from a human rights perspective.
About the case
The case concerned Caster Semenya, a South African elite middle-distance runner and Olympic gold medallist, who challenged regulations introduced by World Athletics (formerly the IAAF). These rules require athletes with differences of sex development (DSD) and naturally higher testosterone levels to undergo medical interventions to lower their hormone levels in order to compete in women’s events. After the athlete’s challenges to these rules were dismissed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and later by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, Semenya took her case to the ECHR - claiming that her human rights had been violated.
ECHR ruling: violation of the right to a fair hearing
Semenya's case before the ECHR focused not primarily on the legitimacy of the regulations themselves, but rather on whether her right to a fair legal process had been respected.
The athlete invoked the following rights under the European Convention on Human Rights:
Articles 8, 13, and 14 – respectively covering:
- Right to respect for private life
- Right to an effective remedy
- Prohibition of discrimination
And Article 6, protecting the right to a fair hearing before an impartial and competent tribunal.
The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims made under Articles 8, 13, and 14 on the basis of territorial jurisdiction. Indeed, while the CAS operates under Swiss law, the regulations challenged by Caster Semenya originated from World Athletics, an organisation based in Monaco. As a result, the ECHR determined that Switzerland could not be held responsible for possible violations of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to the content of those regulations. The rules in question were not created or directly enforced by Swiss authorities, limiting Switzerland’s accountability under these specific articles.
However, the Court reached a different conclusion with regard to Article 6, which protects the right to a fair hearing. Because international athletes such as Semenya are required to resolve disputes exclusively through CAS, and because the Swiss Federal Supreme Court is the only avenue for appeal, Switzerland bears the responsibility of ensuring that this legal process meets the standards of fairness required by the Convention.
In this case, the Court found that the Swiss Federal Supreme Court failed to conduct a sufficiently rigorous review of the issues raised. The Court emphasised that the arbitration process was imposed as the only option available by the federation. Furthermore, the dispute concerned issues that touch on fundamental civil rights under national and international law. In light of these factors, the Court concluded that the review conducted by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court was too limited and superficial, compared to the gravity of the issue. As a result, Semenya’s right to a fair trial had been violated. The ECHR ruled in her favour and ordered Switzerland to pay compensation.
Structural imbalance between sport organisations and athlete
Beyond the individual circumstances of the case, the Court also highlighted a wider structural concern: the structural power imbalance between athletes and the sport’s governing bodies. Sports federations are in a position to unilaterally set the terms of their relationships with athletes. They not only regulate eligibility and competition rules at the international level but also impose arbitration through CAS as the exclusive forum for resolving disputes. Crucially, they also exercise a degree of structural influence over the arbitration process itself, the Court found.
Next steps
Following the ruling, it is expected that Swiss authorities will be required to reassess the case in line with the ECHR’s findings. This decision may not only affect the legal outcome for Caster Semenya but could also set a precedent for how other sports-related legal disputes are reviewed in future.
Coinciding with this development, the issue of access to justice in sport is also being addressed by the European Court of Justice (CJEU). On 1 August, the CJEU is due to deliver its ruling in the RFC Seraing v. FIFA case, which questions whether the enforcement of CAS decisions can prevent athletes or clubs from challenging sport rules under EU law. In her opinion, the Advocate General of the CJEU has already stated that athletes and other parties must be able to turn to national courts when fundamental legal principles are at stake - even when CAS has issued a final ruling and the Swiss Supreme Court has upheld it. Should the CJEU follow this reasoning, CAS decisions could be subject to judicial review in EU Member States when they relate to questions of EU law.
Both cases show that while arbitration cannot come at the expense of fairness, transparency, and individual rights. For sports federations, legal institutions, and athletes alike, the message from Courts is unambiguous: the process must respect fundamental legal safeguards, especially when the consequences reach beyond sport and into the core of human dignity and equality.
Further Information