However, for Caster Semenya, this court win will most likely be of little solace. It's no compensation for the fact that she has lost her whole career because of the DSD Regulations; as fans, we've missed out on some exceptional performances.

developments in the EU context suggest that states might need to take a lead in doing so. Perhaps by becoming more directly engaged in sports governance? Let's see.

While the judgment is disappointing from a non-discrimination perspective, it will serve as yet another argument for why the existing structure of sports governance might need a shake-up. The 'structural imbalance' which the ECtHR referred to needs to be remedied, and the GC judgment +recent/ongoing

the testosterone-lowering treatment; the arbitrary targeting of events by the DSD regulations in which Semenya was competitive; the 'outing' of DSD athletes through the application of the regulations. As a result, the Swiss court failed to carry out the 'in-depth judicial review' that was required.

and the GC highlights many examples where the Swiss court relies too heavily on the assessment of the CAS instead of carrying out its own examination (even on matters where the CAS itself expresses doubts about the proportionality of the DSD regulations!). This includes the potential inefficacy of

This is particularly an issue where arbitration concerns a dispute affecting the 'civil rights' of a party, as was the case in Semenya. In such situations, state courts are 'required to carry out a particularly rigorous examination' of an appeal. The Swiss Federal Tribunal failed to do so,

On the other hand, in finding a violation of Art. 6(1), the GC really puts pressure on the status quo of sports arbitration and the role exercised by Swiss courts in maintaining it. GC calls out the 'structural imbalance' of power between athletes and federations in which such arbitration occurs.

the GC mostly avoids a substantive discussion of the (thorny? politicised?) issue of discrimination of DSD athletes. This is very disappointing, especially as the Chamber judgment was an important counterweight to the growing body of sports rules that are ever more hostile to DSD & trans athletes.

This is almost inverse to the Chamber ruling, where the Court found a violation of Art. 8 (right to private life) in conjunction with Arts. 14 and 13 (non-discrimination and right to remedy) but did not examine Art. 6(1) separately. A finding of no jurisdiction re 8, 14 and 13 means that

The IOC faces hard choices in defending the autonomy of sport governance, its position on intersex and transgender athletes, or its attitude to illegal war atrocities in Ukraine and Gaza. Last week's UKSC decision underlines the reality of wholesale backsliding and the IOC may not be immune to this.