Numerous young athletes have suffered from physical and sexual abuse at the hands of their coaches. Despite this, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has never dealt with a violation of child rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of physical and sexual abuse in sport. In this situation, a question that may arise is how young athletes can argue a violation of their substantive rights under the Convention before the ECtHR in the case of such abuses? In this regard, the right to physical and mental integrity under Articles 10 (2) and 27 (2) of the Swiss Federal Constitution (SFC) as well as the prohibition of an excessive limitation of personal freedom under Article 27 (2) of the Swiss Civil Code (SCC) may play an essential role to build a bridge between the Convention rights and the fundamental human rights under national law in light of the SFT’s precedents within the meaning of substantive public policy under Article 190 (2) (e) of the Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA). Although the International Federations (IFs) have not recognised a legal standing of young athletes suffering from physical and sexual abuse, state parties to the ECHR must implement positive obligations under Article 8 (1) of the ECHR to take necessary measures to protect young athletes against such abuses by non-state actors and may require sports governing bodies within the jurisdiction to comply with Article 8 (1)’s obligations. Accordingly, this article might serve to clarify a duty of sports governing bodies to protect young athletes against such abuses through a lens of the ECHR.

No abstract

No abstract

In sports society, awareness of human rights protection has gradually developed and sports governing bodies, such as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de la Football Association (FIFA), have striven to commit the implementation of human rights guaranteed by internationally recognised human right treaties in the international community. However, human rights law cannot directly impose any legal obligations on sports governing bodies because they are non-state actors established by domestic private law. In this situation, how can international human rights law apply to the private relationship between non-state actors? According to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), state parties must implement positive obligations to protect individuals against any violations caused by non-state actors within the jurisdiction. To implement the positive obligations under the ECHR, it is necessary to identify which state parties should be held responsible for the implementation in sports-related disputes because, in Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland, athletes claimed a violation of the ECHR against Switzerland on the ground that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is located in Lausanne, Switzerland. However, it should be considered that Switzerland is not be liable for all violations of the ECHR’s rights caused by another state party. In light of this, the purpose of this article is to identify a hypothetical standard for determining which state parties should be held responsible for implementing the positive obligations under the ECHR.