The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled on July 10, 2025 that Switzerland violated Olympic champion Caster Semenya’s right to a fair hearing (Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights). The case involved Semenya’s challenge to World Athletics rules requiring female athletes with high natural testosterone to undergo hormone treatment to compete in women’s middle-distance races.

Semenya, a South African runner born with differences of sex development (DSD), first challenged the testosterone rules at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which upheld them in 2019. She then appealed to Switzerland’s Federal Supreme Court (FSC), which also ruled against her in 2020. Semenya brought her case to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that Switzerland violated her rights. In 2023, a Chamber of the court found discrimination violations, but Switzerland appealed

In its latest ruling this month, the Court found Switzerland had jurisdiction under Article 6 § 1 because Semenya’s appeal to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (FSC) created a jurisdictional link. However, it rejected jurisdiction over her Article 8 (private life) and Article 14 (discrimination) claims due to lack of territorial connection beyond the arbitration proceedings.

The Court found Switzerland’s review inadequate because the FSC’s examination was limited to “public policy” compatibility— a very narrow standard. The CAS had expressed “grave concerns” about whether athletes could practically maintain required testosterone levels but left this crucial issue unresolved, and the FSC merely noted the CAS reserved the right to re-examine this in future cases. Despite acknowledging “sparse” evidence supporting inclusion of certain events, neither tribunal adequately addressed these evidentiary shortcomings or the proportionality of privacy violations from effective public disclosure of athletes’ medical status.

The European court emphasized that when athletes are forced into arbitration that affects fundamental rights like bodily integrity and human dignity, national courts must conduct a more thorough review. The current system, which treats sports disputes like commercial arbitration, doesn’t provide adequate protection for athletes’ rights.

This landmark ruling could force changes in how sports arbitration decisions are reviewed and may influence how international sports bodies write rules, especially those requiring medical interventions.