Just ten days after the Semenya judgment—where the European Court of Human Rights found that athlete Caster Semenya’s right to a fair trial had been violated, without ruling on the merits—a Belgian court has now taken a significant step forward in the broader debate on the inclusion of transgender athletes in sports.
In a decision (24/329/C) by the French-speaking Court of First Instance in Brussels, the judge ruled that the exclusion of a transgender cyclist from women’s competitions was discriminatory, thereby issuing a rare judgment on the merits of the case.
The 51-year-old cyclist had to surrender her 2024 women’s license due to new UCI “Eligibility Rules for Transgender Athletes”. These rules require transgender women to maintain extremely low testosterone levels for at least 24 months and, since July 2023, to have transitioned before the onset of puberty—being before the age of 12. As the cyclist in question had not, her license was revoked and she was immediately excluded from women’s events.
However, the International Olympic Committee’s Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination assumes no inherent advantage for transgender athletes and mandates that any exclusion be based on sound scientific evidence meeting strict criteria.
According to the Belgian judge, the UCI failed to meet this standard. The scientific studies it relied on:
- were not peer-reviewed or sufficiently robust;
- were based on demographic groups that do not align with the population of transgender female cyclists; and
- did not demonstrate a consistent, unfair, or disproportionate competitive advantage over cisgender women.
In the absence of such evidence, rules that effectively ban all transgender women from women’s competitions cannot stand. The requirement to have avoided any stage of male puberty was deemed overly strict and unnecessary.
Implications of this decision on the (international) sports sector?
While the ruling allows this particular athlete to regain her license within Belgium, and despite the possible precedent value of this decision, its direct legal effect must also be viewed in a nuanced manner. It applies only domestically, and the UCI’s rules may still be enforced in other countries. Moreover, as a ruling from a court of first instance in summary proceedings, it does not automatically apply to other transgender athletes in Belgium. Each case would still require individual legal action—though this decision may serve as persuasive precedent, even beyond cycling.
Check out the full decision via the following link: https://igvm-iefh.belgium.be/sites/default/files/media/documents/20250710_ano.pdf