FIA court hits back at Briatore over explosive McLaren claims

The FIA’s International Court of Appeal has hit back at Flavio Briatore’s explosive attack on the integrity of its judicial process, delivering an unusually firm defence of the judges who ruled against Alpine following the controversial Monaco Grand Prix penalty saga.

Briatore reignited the dispute at Monza on Friday by questioning the independence of one of the judges involved in the case, pointing to alleged connections with McLaren.

The comments put the spotlight not only on the Monaco ruling but also on the mechanisms used to determine who sits on the FIA’s highest motorsport tribunal.

The ICA has now responded – and its message is unmistakable: it believes its procedures were followed to the letter and has no doubts about the integrity of its panel.

ICA pushes back against Briatore claims

The dispute centres on Pierre Gasly’s original penalty in Monaco, which Alpine successfully overturned through a right of review after the Frenchman was among several drivers punished for pitlane speeding.

Because some other drivers had already served their penalties, however, their situations could not simply be reversed. McLaren and Red Bull subsequently appealed, and the ICA ultimately reinstated Gasly’s penalty.

That decision clearly left a bitter taste at Alpine, but Briatore’s Monza comments took the controversy into much more sensitive territory.

The judge singled out by the Alpine boss was Filippo Marchino, who previously served as CEO of the One Drop Foundation, a charity established by Cirque du Soleil founder Guy Laliberté.

The organisation had received several McLaren road cars from the late McLaren shareholder Mansour Ojjeh, which were subsequently auctioned to raise funds. Marchino had also spoken at a McLaren Special Operations event in Beverly Hills in 2018 – an event with no connection to McLaren’s Formula 1 operation.

The ICA has now made clear that it does not believe those circumstances compromised the judge’s independence.

"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 ICA stated.

The court then laid out the safeguards surrounding its judges, stressing that the selection process is governed by established FIA judicial procedures and standards designed to prevent conflicts of interest.

"The FIA Courts wish to make clear that the appointment and participation of the judges in that case, like for any other case, were conducted in accordance with the applicable FIA judicial procedures and usual practice, which are inspired by the highest standards like the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration."

No objections – and no backing down

The court also pointed out that its judges are elected by the FIA General Assemblies, with some nominated by groups of at least five F1 teams under the FIA statutes. They are required to disclose their interests annually and sign case-specific declarations of independence.

"All judges are elected by the FIA General Assemblies, some of them upon proposition of a group of at least five F1 teams in accordance with the FIA statutes.

“They are all subject to the independence and confidentiality requirements contained in the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, make annual disclosures of interests to the FIA compliance officer, and sign a specific declaration of independence for each particular case in consideration of the issue at stake and the parties involved, which is served to the parties."

Perhaps most pointedly, the ICA noted that neither Alpine nor any other party objected to the composition of the panel before proceedings began – or during the hearing itself.

"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."

The ICA also defended its preference for panels containing judges from varied cultural and geographical backgrounds, arguing that such diversity strengthens rather than weakens the judicial process.

"The ICA emphasises the importance of constituting panels with judges from different cultural and geographical backgrounds.

• Read also: Briatore blasts FIA judge in explosive Monaco podium fallout

This helps ensure that the deliberations and discussions reflect a diversity of legal traditions, perspectives and approaches, further strengthening the fairness, independence, credibility of the process and access to a fair trial."

And with Briatore’s accusations now hanging over the Monaco affair, the court ended with an emphatic vote of confidence in its own process.

"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.

“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."

In other words, Alpine may remain unhappy with the verdict, but the ICA has drawn a very clear line between disagreeing with a ruling and questioning the legitimacy of the people who delivered it.

Keep up to date with all the F1 news via X and Facebook