Alpine is considering whether it can take further action over the 2026 Monaco Grand Prix after the FIA International Court of Appeal reinstated Pierre Gasly’s two five-second pit-lane speeding penalties, stripping him of third place once again and promoting Isack Hadjar back onto the podium. Flavio Briatore has made it clear that Alpine does not intend to simply accept the latest reversal, although the sporting and legal route to another review is extremely narrow.
The controversy has intensified further after Flavio Briatore levelled serious allegations against McLaren team principal Andrea Stella and questioned the independence of FIA International Court of Appeal judge Filippo Marchino. McLaren reacted strongly to those claims after it had joined Red Bull in appealing against the decision that previously restored Pierre Gasly’s podium.
Pierre Gasly loses Monaco podium again after FIA appeal
The Formula 1 paddock is still dealing with the extraordinary sequence of decisions surrounding the Monaco Grand Prix. Pierre Gasly originally finished third on the road before being given two separate five-second penalties for speeding in the pit lane.
Those penalties initially dropped the Alpine driver down the classification and handed third place to Isack Hadjar. Alpine subsequently exercised its Right of Review and successfully had both penalties removed, restoring Pierre Gasly to third place.
McLaren and Red Bull then appealed that decision to the FIA International Court of Appeal. The Court ultimately upheld their appeals, set aside the stewards’ revised decisions and reinstated both five-second penalties. As a result, Pierre Gasly once again lost third place, with Isack Hadjar promoted back onto the lowest step of the podium.
The revised outcome also affects the wider Formula 1 championship standings, with the Monaco classification and associated points having to reflect the International Court of Appeal’s ruling.
Flavio Briatore raises allegations over Filippo Marchino
The strongest reaction came from Flavio Briatore, who publicly questioned the role of Filippo Marchino, one of the four judges who sat on the International Court of Appeal panel.
Briatore essentially alleged that Filippo Marchino had not acted impartially and suggested that he had deliberately favoured McLaren because of alleged previous links with the Woking team. Those remain allegations made by Briatore rather than established findings.
The comments provoked a furious response from McLaren, with Andrea Stella strongly defending the integrity of the judicial process and rejecting the suggestion that the team had received preferential treatment.
Can Alpine challenge the Monaco decision again?
Flavio Briatore and Alpine have indicated that they are unwilling to give up on the dispute and intend to examine whether another route exists to overturn the result of the Monaco Grand Prix.
From a sporting and legal perspective, however, Alpine has very few options available. The FIA International Court of Appeal is the final appeal tribunal in international motorsport, meaning its decisions cannot simply be challenged through another ordinary appeal.
There is nevertheless a form of review procedure for International Court of Appeal decisions that is broadly comparable to the Right of Review available against stewards’ decisions. Under the FIA’s Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, a case can potentially be re-examined if “important new evidence” is discovered that was unknown at the beginning of the proceedings before the International Court of Appeal and could call the decision into question or cause it to be modified.
Flavio Briatore has suggested that Alpine was unaware of Filippo Marchino’s alleged connections with McLaren until after the hearing. If the Enstone-based team wants the Court to revisit the case, it would therefore need to produce genuinely new and substantive evidence capable of supporting the allegations raised publicly by Briatore.
How FIA judge Filippo Marchino was appointed
Such an attempt is unlikely to be straightforward. The FIA has already emphasised that the composition of its judicial panels is subject to a detailed selection process.
The International Court of Appeal draws from a group of 36 experienced legal judges. At least eight are preselected into a pool from which the final panel for an individual case can be chosen.
The list of potential judges is communicated to the parties sufficiently in advance so they can determine whether there are “serious and objective reasons” to believe that one or more preselected judges should withdraw because of a conflict of interest or another legitimate reason.
Alpine did not raise an objection to the selection of the judges at any stage of that process.
Formula 1 cases are also subject to an additional requirement. At least one judge involved in an International Court of Appeal hearing relating to Formula 1 must have been elected to the pool of judges by the FIA General Assembly following a nomination from at least five teams or three manufacturers.
Filippo Marchino was elected by the FIA General Assembly in 2023 after being nominated by Formula 1 teams.
FIA judges face several conflict-of-interest checks
Any judge nominated by the teams is subjected to due diligence by an FIA compliance official. The candidate is then examined by an ad hoc committee before recommendations are submitted to the relevant eligibility review process.
The scrutiny does not end once a judge has been elected. When judges are called upon to hear a specific case, they must also confirm to the FIA Secretary General that they are not affected by any conflict of interest.
Only after that procedure has been completed is the final composition of the International Court of Appeal panel confirmed. The identities of the judges who will hear a case remain unknown to the parties involved until the day of the hearing.
Filippo Marchino’s background has therefore already been subjected to several layers of scrutiny, making Alpine’s task particularly difficult. For another reversal of the Monaco Grand Prix result to become realistic, the team would need to uncover genuinely new evidence that was not available when the International Court of Appeal proceedings began and that was substantial enough to justify reopening the case.
The dispute may therefore continue politically and publicly, but the formal route available to Alpine is much narrower. After several changes to Pierre Gasly’s Monaco result, another reversal would require more than disagreement with the Court’s decision: it would depend on Alpine being able to produce new evidence capable of satisfying the FIA’s review requirements.
Leave a Reply