The FIA International Court of Appeal has upheld appeals lodged by McLaren and Red Bull over the 2026 Monaco Grand Prix, reinstating Pierre Gasly’s two five-second penalties for pit-lane speeding and removing the Alpine driver from the podium. Isack Hadjar is restored to third place, while Pierre Gasly drops back to seventh in another revision of the Monaco race classification.
After around three months of uncertainty, the final result of the Monaco Grand Prix has changed once again. The FIA Court overturned the stewards’ earlier decision to cancel Pierre Gasly’s two penalties following a post-race review, meaning the Frenchman loses the third place he had temporarily regained.
The ruling also changes the positions immediately behind the podium. Isack Hadjar moves back into third place, Oscar Piastri rises from fifth to fourth, while Racing Bulls drivers Liam Lawson and Arvid Lindblad move up to fifth and sixth respectively. Pierre Gasly is classified seventh.
Isack Hadjar regains Monaco podium after FIA appeal
Pierre Gasly had originally been classified seventh at the end of the race after receiving two separate five-second penalties for exceeding the 60 km/h pit-lane speed limit. Alpine subsequently requested a review of both decisions and succeeded in having the penalties cancelled, which promoted Pierre Gasly back to third place.
The FIA International Court of Appeal has now reversed that outcome after considering appeals filed by McLaren and Red Bull.
The main beneficiary is Isack Hadjar, who regains the podium he had earned despite suffering numerous power unit problems during the race. Oscar Piastri also recovers one position, moving back into fourth, while Liam Lawson and Arvid Lindblad are restored to fifth and sixth ahead of Pierre Gasly.
Why McLaren and Red Bull won the Monaco appeal
Alpine initially succeeded with its review because post-race investigations by Formula One Management, which operates Formula 1’s official timing system, had identified a discrepancy involving the distance used to calculate speed between the timing loops at pit entry.
That difference had led to the conclusion that the official system had overestimated pit-lane speed, particularly for drivers taking a shorter line through the entry section. On that basis, the stewards cancelled Pierre Gasly’s two penalties and restored him to the podium.
The decision immediately generated controversy because, while Pierre Gasly’s penalties could be rescinded after the race, the same could not be done for other drivers who had already served comparable penalties during the Grand Prix.
During the appeal proceedings, Alpine argued that “although the timing system remains the reference in any event, the relevant regulations do not require the speed limit to be calculated on the basis of the timing system, and a competitor has the right to provide evidence of any error in the system and request a review of an unfounded decision.”
Alpine had produced data to demonstrate the alleged problem, and that evidence had been central to its successful initial review.
FIA Court rules same timing benchmark had to apply to everyone
The Court, however, concluded that the distance used by the official timing system had been measured, checked and applied consistently to every competitor throughout the entire Monaco weekend. Teams had also calibrated their pit-lane speed limiters against the same official system.
For that reason, the Court ruled that it was not acceptable to change the measurement parameter retrospectively for only one competitor after the race had already been completed under a common benchmark.
The key figure in the original review was the 2692 cm distance used between the timing loops. That value had been challenged after a shorter theoretical distance of 2615 cm was identified in post-race analysis.
The Court nevertheless considered that distinction insufficient to invalidate the original benchmark. Formula One Management had realised after the Grand Prix that, because of the geometry of the area, a different and shorter line could have been selected for the calculation. However, no regulation in force at the event prescribed one specific geometric method for determining that section of track.
As a result, the original 2692 cm parameter remained valid for the purposes of the competition.
Pierre Gasly’s actual trajectory could not be established
There was another crucial problem with the post-race evidence: neither Formula One Management nor Alpine could establish with certainty the exact distance Pierre Gasly’s car had actually travelled between the two timing loops.
The uncontested elapsed times were 1.604 seconds and 1.602 seconds. On those timings, Pierre Gasly would only have remained below 60 km/h if the actual distances travelled were no more than approximately 2673 cm and 2670 cm respectively.
Neither Formula One Management nor Alpine was able to demonstrate beyond the required evidential standard that Pierre Gasly had actually travelled those shorter distances.
The Court therefore rejected the stewards’ earlier assessment that the post-race material came close to proving beyond reasonable doubt that Pierre Gasly had remained within the speed limit.
Using the official 2692 cm parameter that had applied throughout the Monaco weekend, Pierre Gasly had exceeded the limit on both occasions and the two five-second penalties therefore had to stand.
FIA Court stresses sporting fairness and equal treatment
The Court also drew an important distinction over how Formula 1’s Right of Review procedure can be used. New evidence may correct a situation in which an agreed benchmark was incorrectly applied to one competitor, but it cannot retrospectively replace the common benchmark for an entire event solely for the benefit of one team.
“The Court considers that the material that emerged after the race is not sufficient to overcome the evidential result produced by applying the contemporaneous official benchmark. That material shows that a different geometric approach leads to a different theoretical distance. However, it does not establish the actual distance travelled by Car No. 10 or its actual average speed, and the Court is unable, on the evidence available, to determine those elements independently of the timing system, one way or the other.”
The principle of equal treatment was particularly important because every team had competed using the same official timing benchmark. Applying a different calculation only to Pierre Gasly after the race would effectively have meant judging one competitor by a different standard from the rest of the field.
Why the Monaco appeal mattered beyond Pierre Gasly and Isack Hadjar
Alpine was fully entitled to defend its data and request a review after the race. At the same time, it was understandable that teams which had relied on Formula 1’s official systems felt disadvantaged twice: first by receiving a penalty and then by being unable to recover the sporting consequences once that penalty had already been served during the race.
Red Bull’s motivation was clear, as the appeal gave Isack Hadjar the opportunity to regain the third place he had initially secured on track. McLaren’s position was slightly different. Oscar Piastri had lost three points in the temporary revised classification, potentially significant in the Constructors’ Championship, but the wider concern centred on sporting fairness, regulatory consistency and the integrity of the process.
The appeal therefore also had implications beyond the 2026 Monaco Grand Prix. McLaren and Red Bull wanted to avoid a precedent in which an event-wide measurement benchmark could be changed retrospectively for only one competitor after everyone had raced against the same official system.
With the appeal upheld, the Monaco classification is restored with Isack Hadjar third, Oscar Piastri fourth, Liam Lawson fifth, Arvid Lindblad sixth and Pierre Gasly seventh. The resulting championship implications are reflected in the 2026 Formula 1 driver standings.
Leave a Reply