Semenya’s right to a fair hearing violated, European Court of Human Rights rules

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Caster Semenya’s rights to a fair hearing were violated.

This is the latest outcome in a long legal battle against athletics authorities and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Grand Chamber of the European Court on Thursday, 10 July 2025 upheld a 2023 ruling that the two-time 800m Olympic champion’s appeal to a Swiss Federal Supreme Court against regulations that barred her from competing had not been properly heard.

Semenya, an athlete with differences in sexual development (DSD), has been involved in a legal battle over regulations that prohibit her from running unless she medically lowers her natural testosterone levels.

She first took her fight to the CAS, sport’s highest court, in 2018, and later to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

Semenya lost both cases, although when the CAS ruled against her four years ago it accepted that it meant she was being discriminated against. However, its judges ruled 2-1 that “such discrimination is a necessary, reasonable and proportionate means of achieving World Athletics’ aim of preserving the integrity of female athletics in the Restricted Events”.

On Thursday, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its Grand Chamber judgment in the case and found in favour of Semenya on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), but ruled against her on three technical areas — Article 8 (right to respect for private life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) — due to jurisdiction.

Semenya challenged regulations that required her to lower her natural testosterone levels to compete in the female category internationally. She also challenged the rejection of her legal actions against these regulations by the CAS in Switzerland and subsequently the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

At 34, she has no intention of competing again, but the case has become about fighting for other DSD athletes’ rights.

Violation

The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of the right to a fair hearing (Article 6 of the Convention) on the grounds that the Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s review of Semenya’s case did not meet the required “particularly rigorous examination”.

The European Court of Human Rights decided that the CAS’s mandatory and exclusive jurisdiction was imposed on Semenya by a sport governing body, not by law.

This situation creates a structural imbalance in the relationship between sportspersons and governing bodies.

Specifically, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s review was limited to assessing if the CAS’s conclusion was “unjustified” based on its findings, even though the court had left open the issue of athletes maintaining testosterone levels, which was central to Semenya’s argument.

The dispute concerned one or more of her “civil” rights. These “civil” rights corresponded to fundamental rights in domestic law.

The European Court of Human Rights found that despite the CAS expressing serious concerns about the difficulty athletes face in maintaining testosterone levels under the regulations, and this issue being central and decisive to Semenya’s case, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court conducted only a limited review of the CAS’s decision.

The Federal Supreme Court did not sufficiently act on doubts expressed by the CAS regarding other questions, such as the alleged arbitrary inclusion of the 1,500m and one mile events, and the potential for the regulations to make public the status of female athletes with differences of sex development.

The Federal Supreme Court also rejected, without thorough examination, Semenya’s argument comparing her situation to a previous case in which a CAS award was deemed incompatible with public policy.

Consequently, the European Court of Human Rights concluded that the Federal Supreme Court’s review, due to its restrictive interpretation of “public policy”, did not satisfy the required rigour, leading to a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.

Although Semenya did not submit a claim for damages, the Court ordered that “Switzerland” pay €80,000 in “respect of costs and expenses”.

Dismissed

Despite the success with Article 6, Semenya’s complaints under Article 8 (right to respect for private life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) were rejected by the European Court of Human Rights.

Semenya submitted that the DSD Regulations had affected her psychological integrity and identity, her right to self‐determination and her right to exercise her professional activity, and that they had led to discriminatory treatment.

The court examined whether the applicant fell within Switzerland’s jurisdiction to allow the complaints to be heard.

Generally, a state’s jurisdiction is territorial, meaning the facts of the complaint must occur within that state’s territory.

In this case, as Semenya is a South African national living in South Africa, she has no personal link with Switzerland, and Switzerland played no role in drafting or applying the DSD Regulations. They are drafted by World Athletics, which is registered in Monaco.

Therefore, Semenya did not fall within Switzerland’s territorial jurisdiction for most complaints and the Grand Chamber, by a vote of 13 to 4, declared Semenya’s complaints inadmissible under Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention.

The case could now return to the Swiss courts, or to CAS. DM