International Court of Appeal Defends Integrity Amid Briatore Accusations

The International Court of Appeal has moved to firmly defend its integrity after explosive accusations from Alpine boss Flavio Briatore over the make-up of the panel that ruled on the Monaco Grand Prix pitlane speeding saga.

Court hits back at Briatore claims

Briatore used the stage of the Italian Grand Prix press conference to question the neutrality of the judges who heard McLaren and Red Bull’s appeal against the rescinding of Pierre Gasly’s Monaco penalties, claiming one of them had ties to McLaren.

The ICA, which operates independently from the FIA and serves as the sport’s highest judicial authority, has now issued a detailed rebuttal. It insists the panel that handled Case ICA-2026-06-07-08-09 was appointed exactly in line with its established procedures and the conflict-of-interest standards that underpin international arbitration.

“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 in a statement, before stressing that the selection of judges followed FIA judicial rules and practices “inspired by the highest standards like the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration.”

Gasly’s podium, a review, and a backlash

The row has its roots in Monaco. Gasly was among several drivers incorrectly penalised for pitlane speeding, a call that initially cost the Alpine driver a podium. Alpine launched a right of review and succeeded: Gasly’s penalties were rescinded, and his result restored.

But there was a sting in the tail. Other drivers had already served their penalties in-race. Unlike Gasly, they could not be made whole. McLaren and Red Bull argued that this inconsistency was unacceptable and took the matter to the ICA.

The court sided with the appellants. Gasly’s penalties were reinstated, a decision that infuriated the Frenchman and his team and set the stage for Briatore’s public attack on the court’s composition.

The Marchino question

At the heart of Briatore’s complaint sits judge Filippo Marchino. Briatore pointed to Marchino’s past role as CEO of the One Drop Foundation, a charity founded by Cirque du Soleil impresario Guy Laliberte. During Marchino’s tenure, the foundation received several McLaren road cars from the late McLaren shareholder Mansour Ojjeh, to be auctioned for charity.

Briatore also highlighted Marchino’s appearance as a speaker at a McLaren Special Operations event in Beverly Hills in 2018, an engagement unrelated to the Formula 1 team but enough, in Briatore’s view, to cast doubt on the judge’s impartiality.

The ICA did not name Marchino in its statement, but it addressed the broader accusation head-on by outlining how its judges are chosen and monitored.

How the judges are picked

According to the court, all ICA judges are elected by FIA General Assemblies, with some put forward by groups of at least five F1 teams, as permitted by FIA statutes. Each judge is bound by independence and confidentiality rules laid out in the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules.

They must file annual disclosures of interests with the FIA compliance officer and sign a specific declaration of independence for every individual case, tailored to the matter at stake and the parties involved. That declaration is shared with those parties.

The ICA also revealed that no one raised any concern about the panel’s composition when it mattered most.

“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 read. “No objection was raised during the hearing concerning the manner in which the court questioned the witness or conducted the proceedings.”

Diversity as a principle

The court underlined that it deliberately seeks variety when assembling its panels.

“The ICA emphasises the importance of constituting panels with judges from different cultural and geographical backgrounds,” it said. That mix, the court argued, brings a range of legal traditions and perspectives into the room, strengthening “the fairness, independence, credibility of the process and access to a fair trial.”

The ICA acknowledged that its rulings will always be open to debate from a legal standpoint. “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.

Yet on the core issue raised by Briatore, the court left no ambiguity. It expressed full confidence in “the soundness of the proceedings and the integrity of the judges” and reiterated that the FIA courts “remain committed to the independence and impartiality of their judges and to the integrity of the judicial process.”

The legal fight over Monaco may be over on paper. The question now is whether the paddock will accept the verdict of the sport’s highest court—or whether this episode lingers as another fault line in Formula 1’s battle over trust and authority.