Quick answer
In Semenya v. Switzerland (Grand Chamber, 10 July 2025, application no. 10934/21), the European Court of Human Rights held by fifteen votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Where the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport had been imposed on the athlete by the governing body, and the dispute concerned a civil right corresponding in domestic law to fundamental rights, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court was required to conduct a particularly rigorous examination — and its review, limited to a very restrictive reading of substantive public policy, did not provide it. The complaints under Articles 8, 13 and 14 were declared inadmissible.
Background and facts
The applicant, an international middle-distance athlete, challenged regulations adopted by World Athletics governing athletes with differences of sex development, which required her to lower her natural testosterone level in order to compete in the women’s category in international competitions. The dispute went to arbitration before the CAS, which rejected the requests for arbitration in a 136-page reasoned award of 30 April 2019.
She then brought a civil-law appeal before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court seeking to have the award set aside. By a judgment of 25 August 2020, notified on 7 September 2020, that court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the award was not incompatible with substantive public policy.
The jurisdictional question
Switzerland had not adopted the regulations and the applicant had never competed there, so the first question was whether she fell within Swiss jurisdiction under Article 1 of the Convention at all. The Grand Chamber held that she did not on a territorial basis. The civil-law appeal to the Federal Supreme Court did, however, create — by way of exception — a jurisdictional link with Switzerland in respect of Article 6. For the complaints under Articles 8, 13 and 14 no such exceptional circumstances existed, and by thirteen votes to four the Court upheld the Government’s objection that those complaints were incompatible ratione personae and ratione loci and declared them inadmissible.
The Court’s reasoning on Article 6 § 1
Two features drove the analysis. First, the arbitration was not a matter of choice: CAS jurisdiction was mandatory and exclusive, imposed on the athlete by the sports governing body as a condition of competing. Second, the dispute concerned rights which, in domestic law, correspond to fundamental rights. In that combination, the Court held, the right to a fair hearing required the reviewing national court to carry out a particularly rigorous examination of the complaint.
The Federal Supreme Court’s review was instead confined to the compatibility of the award with substantive public policy, a concept it interpreted very restrictively. The Court concluded that the required examination had not been carried out.
The judgment
- Unanimously, the request for re-examination of the complaint under Article 3 was rejected.
- By thirteen votes to four, the complaints under Articles 8 (alone and with Article 14) and Article 13 were declared inadmissible as incompatible ratione personae and ratione loci.
- Unanimously, the complaint under Article 6 § 1 was declared admissible.
- By fifteen votes to two, there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
- Unanimously, Switzerland was to pay EUR 80,000 in respect of costs and expenses; the remainder of the just-satisfaction claim was dismissed.
What this means for athletes and counsel
The judgment is a statement about the intensity of national judicial review, not a new avenue of appeal. It does not invalidate CAS awards, does not make Strasbourg a sports tribunal and does not relax the admissibility rules. What it does establish is that where arbitration is compulsory and fundamental interests are at stake, a national court cannot discharge its Convention obligations with a review so narrow that the substance of the complaint is never examined.
Practically, three things decide whether a comparable case is arguable: whether the arbitration was genuinely compulsory, what the dispute determined, and what the national court actually did with the objection. Our pages on sports arbitration and the Convention and on applications after Swiss Federal Supreme Court decisions set out how that assessment is made.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey: Independence of Football Arbitration
- Yokuşlu v. Türkiye: Football Arbitration and Article 6 After Reform
- Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland: Fair Hearing in Sports Arbitration
- Străin and Others v. Romania
- Rotaru v. Romania
- Brumărescu v. Romania
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, check the admissibility criteria, or get a free assessment of your case.
Read the full judgment on HUDOC (official ECHR database)
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Court rule on the DSD regulations themselves?
No. The complaints that would have raised the substance of the regulations — under Articles 8, 13 and 14 — were declared inadmissible for want of a jurisdictional link with Switzerland. The violation found concerns the Swiss court’s review, not the content of the rules.
Does the judgment set the CAS award aside?
No. A finding of a violation engages the responsibility of the respondent State and may lead to just satisfaction; it does not annul an arbitral award. What follows domestically depends on Swiss law and on the execution process supervised by the Committee of Ministers.
Does every athlete who loses before the Federal Supreme Court now have a case?
No. The finding rests on the combination of compulsory arbitration and a dispute engaging fundamental rights. Without those features, and without an objection properly raised and preserved, the reasoning does not transfer.