FIA appeal court defends judge appointments after Briatore allegations

FIA court rejects concerns over Monaco appeal panel

The FIA’s International Court of Appeal has defended the appointment and independence of the judges who ruled on the Monaco Grand Prix penalty case, after Alpine boss Flavio Briatore questioned the panel’s integrity.

The ICA, which operates independently of the FIA and serves as motorsport’s highest court for related matters, was convened after McLaren and Red Bull appealed the stewards’ decision to rescind Pierre Gasly’s Monaco penalties. The ruling ultimately reinstated the penalties, removing Gasly’s podium and frustrating Alpine.

The background to the dispute was covered in Briatore’s earlier challenge to the FIA appeal panel, in which the Alpine chief questioned whether one of the judges had links to McLaren.

Marchino’s McLaren connection questioned

The judge identified by Briatore was Filippo Marchino, who had served as CEO of the One Drop Foundation, a charity founded by Cirque du Soleil impresario Guy Laliberté. During that period, the foundation received several McLaren road cars from the late McLaren shareholder Mansour Ojjeh, with the vehicles intended to raise funds through auction.

Briatore also referred to a 2018 McLaren Special Operations event in Beverly Hills at which Marchino appeared as a speaker. The source material noted that the event was unrelated to McLaren’s Formula 1 team.

In its response, the ICA said the panel had been formed in line with its judicial procedures and established practice, drawing on standards including the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration.

Judges’ declarations and hearing procedure

The court said its judges are elected by FIA General Assemblies, with some nominated by at least five Formula 1 teams under the FIA statutes. Judges must comply with independence and confidentiality requirements, submit annual disclosures of interests to the FIA compliance officer and sign a case-specific declaration of independence.

The ICA also said the parties were invited to raise concerns about the proceedings or the court’s composition at both the beginning and end of the hearing. No objection was raised, including during the questioning of witnesses or the conduct of the proceedings.

The court defended panels that include judges from different cultural and geographical backgrounds, arguing that this broadens the legal perspectives involved and reinforces the fairness and credibility of the process. It concluded that it remained confident in the proceedings and the integrity of its judges.