Semenya Secures Partial Win in European Court Over Athletics Eligibility Rules

Semenya Wins ECHR Ruling, But Restrictions on DSD Athletes Remain

STRASBOURG, FRANCE – Caster Semenya, the two-time Olympic 800m champion, has secured a significant victory at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), though the immediate impact on her ability to compete remains unclear. The ECHR’s Grand Chamber ruled Tuesday that Switzerland failed to adequately protect Semenya’s rights during a previous legal challenge concerning regulations impacting athletes with Differences of Sex Advancement (DSD).

The case centered not on World Athletics’ rules themselves, but on the Swiss government’s handling of Semenya’s appeal against a 2020 Swiss Supreme Court ruling. The ECHR found the Swiss court’s review “had fallen short” of the “particular rigour” required under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing a fair hearing.

However, crucially, the court deemed complaints relating to privacy, effective remedy, and discrimination – articles 8, 13, and 14 – inadmissible, stating they fell outside Switzerland’s jurisdiction.This means the ruling does not directly overturn World Athletics’ regulations, which require female athletes with naturally high testosterone levels to suppress them in order to compete in certain track and field events. Thes rules, expanded to cover all female track and field events in 2023, are intended by the governing body to ensure fair competition and protect the female category.

Semenya previously challenged World athletics’ rules at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in 2019, but was unsuccessful.The July 2023 ECHR ruling marked a partial win, focusing on procedural failings within the Swiss legal system.

“This is a reminder to the leaders [that] athletes need to be protected,” Semenya stated after leaving the court in Strasbourg. “Before we can regulate we have to respect athletes and put their rights first.”

What Happens Next?

The ECHR’s grand Chamber decisions are final.The case is now likely to return to the Swiss federal court in Lausanne for further review. While World Athletics declined to comment, the ruling could prompt a re-examination of how similar cases are handled within the Swiss legal framework.

Understanding the DSD Debate: A Long-Running Controversy

This case is the latest chapter in a complex and often fraught debate surrounding fairness and inclusion in sports. Athletes with DSD conditions, like Semenya, may have naturally occurring variations in sex characteristics, including higher testosterone levels.World Athletics argues these variations can provide a performance advantage in certain events, necessitating regulations to level the playing field.

Critics, though, contend that these regulations are discriminatory and violate the human rights of athletes with DSD, forcing them to undergo medical interventions – frequently enough hormone suppression – to compete. The core of the debate revolves around defining “fairness” in sport and balancing the rights of all athletes.

The ECHR ruling, while not a sweeping victory for Semenya, underscores the importance of due process and rigorous legal review in cases impacting athletes’ careers and basic rights. it also highlights the ongoing need for a nuanced and respectful dialog about inclusion and fairness in the world of competitive sports. The long-term implications of this case will likely continue to unfold as it navigates the Swiss legal system and potentially influences future policy decisions within World Athletics and other sporting organizations.

what specific article of the European Convention on Human Rights did the ECHR find was violated by World Athletics’ regulations regarding Caster Semenya?

The Ruling: A Breakdown of the ECHR Decision

On July 10, 2025, the European court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a landmark, though partial, victory for South African track star Caster Semenya in her long-running legal battle against World Athletics’ (formerly IAAF) eligibility regulations for female athletes with Differences of Sex Advancement (DSD). The court ruled that World Athletics’ regulations,which require Semenya and other athletes with naturally high testosterone levels to undergo hormone-reducing treatment to compete in certain track events,did violate Semenya’s human rights. However, crucially, the ECHR also found that the regulations were a “necessary and proportionate” means of ensuring fair competition, a point of contention that substantially tempers the win.

This ruling centers around regulations implemented in 2018 and subsequently revised,targeting athletes in events from 400m to the mile. These rules aimed to address perceived unfair advantages conferred by higher testosterone levels, a factor naturally occurring in some women with DSD conditions like Semenya’s 46,XY DSD. The core of the debate revolves around balancing inclusivity, fairness, and the protection of female athletes.

Key Findings of the ECHR Ruling

The ECHR’s decision wasn’t a complete vindication for Semenya. Here’s a detailed look at the key findings:

Violation of Article 8 (Right to Private Life): The court acknowledged that the regulations interfered with Semenya’s right to private and family life, as they required her to undergo medical treatment to conform to a specific standard.

No Violation of Article 14 (Non-Discrimination): Despite the violation of Article 8, the ECHR found no violation of article 14, which prohibits discrimination. This is as the court accepted World Athletics’ argument that the regulations were based on objective and reasonable scientific evidence related to athletic performance.

Proportionality and Necessity: The court determined that World Athletics had demonstrated a “pressing social need” to ensure fair competition and that the regulations were a proportionate response to that need. This aspect of the ruling is highly likely to be the most debated.

Lack of Adequate Consultation: The ECHR criticized World Athletics for a lack of adequate consultation with affected athletes during the development of the regulations.

Understanding Differences of Sex Development (DSD)

Differences of Sex Development (DSD) encompass a range of conditions where a person’s reproductive or sexual anatomy doesn’t fit typical definitions of male or female. These conditions can manifest in various ways, frequently enough involving variations in sex chromosomes, hormones, or internal reproductive organs.

46,XY DSD: Semenya has 46,XY DSD, meaning she was born with XY chromosomes (typically associated with males) but developed as a female. This resulted in naturally higher testosterone levels.

Impact on Athletic Performance: World Athletics argues that higher testosterone levels can provide a important advantage in certain athletic events, notably those requiring strength and power.

The Controversy: The debate surrounding DSD and athletic eligibility raises complex ethical and scientific questions about fairness, inclusion, and the definition of biological sex. Critics argue the regulations are discriminatory and harmful, forcing athletes to undergo needless medical intervention.

World Athletics’ Response and Future Implications

world Athletics has released a statement acknowledging the ECHR’s ruling and reaffirming its commitment to fair competition. They emphasized the court’s recognition of the legitimacy of their concerns regarding testosterone levels and athletic advantage.

the association is currently reviewing the ruling and considering its implications for future regulations. Possible outcomes include:

Revised Regulations: World Athletics may revise its regulations to address the ECHR’s concerns about consultation and proportionality.

Continued Defense: They may continue to defend the core principles of the regulations, arguing that they are essential for protecting fair competition in women’s athletics.

Further Legal Challenges: Semenya and other affected athletes may pursue further legal challenges, perhaps appealing specific aspects of the ECHR’s decision.

The Broader Debate: Fairness vs. inclusion in Sports

the Semenya case has ignited a global debate about fairness and inclusion in sports, particularly concerning athletes with intersex variations. Key arguments include:

Protecting Women’s Sport: Proponents of the regulations argue they are necessary to protect the integrity of women’s athletics and ensure a level playing field.

Human Rights and Dignity: Critics contend that the regulations violate the human rights and dignity of athletes with DSD, forcing them to choose between their health and their careers.

The Complexity of Biological Sex: The case highlights the limitations of binary classifications of sex and the need for a more nuanced understanding of biological variation.

Choice Solutions: Discussions are ongoing about alternative solutions, such as creating separate categories for athletes with DSD or focusing on individual performance rather than comparisons between athletes.

Resources and Further Reading

* European Court of human Rights – Semenya v.France: [https://hudocechrcoeint/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=003-7884499-974[https://hudocechrcoeint/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=003-7884499-974