International Court of Appeal Defends Ruling Amid Controversy

The International Court of Appeal has moved to defend its own house.

Under fire from Alpine boss Flavio Briatore over alleged links between one of its judges and McLaren, the FIA’s highest judicial body issued a firm, detailed rebuttal of any suggestion its Monaco Grand Prix ruling was tainted.

A podium lost, a storm ignited

The row traces back to a chaotic Sunday in Monte Carlo.

Pierre Gasly was among several drivers incorrectly hit with pitlane speeding penalties, a decision that initially stripped the Alpine driver of a podium. Alpine fought back, launching a right of review that successfully overturned Gasly’s sanctions.

There was a catch. Other drivers had already served their penalties during the race. Gasly had not. Their punishments stood, his were wiped. That imbalance triggered an appeal from McLaren and Red Bull, who argued the outcome could not be squared with sporting fairness.

The International Court of Appeal sided with the appellants and reinstated Gasly’s penalties. Alpine’s relief turned to fury. Gasly lost his reprieved result. The team lost the sense that justice had been done.

Briatore did not stop at frustration. During a fiery Italian Grand Prix press conference, he openly questioned the integrity of the court, pointing at one name on the judging panel: Filippo Marchino.

The judge under scrutiny

Briatore’s accusations centred on Marchino’s past as CEO of the One Drop Foundation, a charity founded by Cirque du Soleil creator Guy Laliberte.

During Marchino’s tenure, One Drop received several McLaren road cars as gifts from the late Mansour Ojjeh, then a McLaren shareholder, to be auctioned for fundraising. Briatore also highlighted Marchino’s appearance as a speaker at a McLaren Special Operations event in Beverly Hills in 2018 — an event with no formal link to the F1 team, but with the McLaren brand front and centre.

For Briatore, those touchpoints were enough to question whether Marchino could be truly independent when McLaren stood on one side of the appeal.

ICA: Process followed, no objections raised

In a rare public statement, the International Court of Appeal stressed that the panel in the Monaco case was appointed exactly as its rules prescribe.

“The FIA Courts are aware of public comments questioning the independence and impartiality of the judges of the panel that decided Case ICA-2026-06-07-08-09,” the court said, referencing the McLaren and Red Bull appeal.

It underlined that the selection and participation of judges “like for any other case” followed FIA judicial procedures and “usual practice”, which it says draw on “the highest standards like the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration.”

Every judge, the ICA noted, is elected by the FIA General Assemblies, with some put forward by a group of at least five F1 teams in line with FIA statutes. All must comply with independence and confidentiality rules laid out in the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules.

On top of that, judges file annual disclosures of interests to the FIA compliance officer and sign a specific declaration of independence for each individual case, tailored to the issues and parties involved. Those declarations are shared with the parties.

Crucially, the ICA pointed out that nobody – not Alpine, not McLaren, not Red Bull – challenged the make-up of the panel when they had the chance.

“At both the beginning and conclusion of the hearing, the parties were invited to raise any issue concerning the proceedings or the composition of the court. None did so,” the statement continued. “No objection was raised during the hearing concerning the manner in which the court questioned the witness or conducted the proceedings.”

Diversity on the bench, tension in the paddock

The court also used the moment to defend the way it builds its panels, arguing that variety is a strength, not a weakness.

“The ICA emphasises the importance of constituting panels with judges from different cultural and geographical backgrounds,” it said. That mix, it argued, ensures “a diversity of legal traditions, perspectives and approaches,” which in turn should reinforce “fairness, independence, credibility of the process and access to a fair trial.”

The ICA accepted that its rulings will always be dissected, and that the legal reasoning can be debated. That is part of the game. But it drew a hard line at the integrity of those delivering the verdicts.

“A court’s decision can leave room for various interpretations and comments as for its legal merits; that is fair and accepted by all the judges,” it added. “The court is confident in the soundness of the proceedings and the integrity of the judges. The FIA courts remain committed to the independence and impartiality of their judges and to the integrity of the judicial process.”

The Monaco penalties saga has already reshaped a race result and reopened questions about consistency in officiating. Now it has dragged the sport’s top judicial body into the spotlight.

The court has made its stance clear. The next move, and the next word, may come from the paddock.