11 Jul CASTER SEMENYA WINS HER LANDMARK CASE

The original case between Semenya and World Athletics was about whether athletes like herself, who have specific medical conditions, a typical male chromosone pattern and naturally high testosterone levels, should be allowed to compete in women’s sports.

On 10 July 2025, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Switzerland violated Caster Semenya’s right to a fair hearing under Article 6(1) of the ECHR. The decision relates to Switzerland’s limited review of a CAS arbitral award in the set-aside proceedings before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (SFSC).

Because Caster Semenya appealed the CAS award to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, Switzerland was responsible for ensuring Article 6 ECHR safeguards applied to that review.

Structural imbalance matters: The Court highlighted the power imbalance between athletes and sports governing bodies – and noted that CAS’s jurisdiction wasn’t imposed by law, but by sport-specific rules (mandatory and exclusive jurisdiction). Especially rigorous scrutiny required: Given the seriousness of the rights involved, the CAS’s exclusivity, and the lack of meaningful choice for the athlete, the Federal Supreme Court had to conduct a particularly rigorous review.

The Court held:

“In sum, the specific characteristics of the sports arbitration to which the applicant was subject, entailing the mandatory and exclusive jurisdiction of the CAS, required an in-depth judicial review – commensurate with the seriousness of the personal rights at issue – by the only domestic court having jurisdiction to carry out such a task. The review of the applicant’s case by the Federal Supreme Court, not least owing to its very restrictive interpretation of the notion of public policy, which it also applied to the review of arbitral awards by the CAS, did not satisfy the requirement of particular rigour called for in the circumstances of the case. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicant did not benefit from the safeguards provided by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
239. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.”

Questions in international sports arbitration are now increasingly being addressed at the European level — even if that may come at the expense of the swift and final resolution arbitration is known for.

See for the details here:
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-244348