Yet Another Overturn
The F1 paddock is still in shock from the incredible chaos that erupted yesterday following the decision of the FIA International Court of Appeal to overturn the result of the Monaco GP yet again, once again stripping Pierre Gasly of third place – to whom the two 5-second penalties for speeding in the pit lane, previously removed following the Right of Review, were reapplied – and promoting Isack Hadjar to the lowest step of the podium. However, what caused the most stir were the very serious accusations made in a press conference by Flavio Briatore – Alpine’s team principal – against his McLaren counterpart Andrea Stella. The papaya team had indeed filed the appeal against Gasly’s podium together with Red Bull. Briatore essentially accused a member of the ICA, Filippo Marchino, of not acting transparently, but deliberately favoring McLaren with whom he allegedly has ties. A very serious attack, which provoked McLaren’s outrage.
Read more The Ferrari dilemma to beat Mercedes
What Could Happen Now
Briatore and the entire Alpine team have hinted that they do not intend to give up in this legal battle and plan to study new strategies to try to overturn the Grand Prix result once again. However, in reality, from a legal-sporting point of view, the options available to the Enstone team are few. The FIA International Court of Appeal is the supreme authority and parties cannot appeal its decisions. However, even in this situation there is a sort of ‘right of review‘ similar to that provided for race stewards’ verdicts, under which decisions can be challenged if “new important evidence, unknown at the start of the case before the International Court of Appeal” is discovered. Briatore suggested that Alpine knew nothing of Marchino’s alleged ties with McLaren until after the hearing. Therefore, if the Franco-British team wants to overturn this ruling, it should try to produce new and concrete evidence supporting the accusations made by Briatore in the press conference.
How Marchino Was Appointed
However, the operation will be anything but simple because the FIA has already clarified that the composition of the jury is subject to a rigorous selection process. The International Court of Appeal relies on a list of 36 eminent legal experts, of whom at least eight are selected to form a group of experts to be chosen for each individual case. This list is communicated to the interested parties well in advance, with the aim of verifying whether there are “serious and objective reasons to believe that one or more preselected judges should abstain due to a conflict of interest or other legitimate reasons“. At no stage of this process did Alpine raise objections regarding the selection of the judges.
Read more Russell hides: “Ferrari is the team to beat. McLaren and Red Bull are also there”
Furthermore, according to Formula 1 regulations, at least one of the judges involved in a hearing of the International Court of Appeal related to the Circus must have been elected to the group of experts during the FIA General Assembly on the proposal of at least five teams or three manufacturers. In 2023, Marchino was appointed precisely by the FIA General Assembly after being proposed by the teams. Any judge proposed by the teams is then subject to a due diligence check by an FIA official and is finally examined by an ad hoc commission before recommendations are presented to the suitability evaluation committee. In addition to this initial evaluation, when judges are called to judge specific cases, they must confirm to the FIA Secretary General that they are not influenced by any conflict of interest. Only after completing this procedure is the final composition of the ICA judging panel defined, which remains unknown to all parties involved in the case until the day of the hearing.
In short, Marchino’s background has already been thoroughly scrutinized and it seems difficult to imagine that Briatore could somehow manage to find unknown elements that would lead to a further overturning of this endless saga.
Read more Verstappen: “Significant gap, difficult to find the right compromise in terms of setup”
