FIA appeal court issues firm response in wake of Briatore claims

The FIA International Court of Appeal has issued a statement defending its processes in the wake of Alpine Formula 1 executive advisor Flavio Briatore's comments that appeared to question the independence of one judge on its panel.

Briatore started a public row against McLaren during a press conference appearance at the Italian Grand Prix on Friday. That came after the FIA communicated that its International Court of Appeal had ruled to reinstate the two five-second penalties that Pierre Gasly incurred at the Monaco GP in June, which Alpine had previously successfully had quashed.

This meant Gasly lost his podium for a second time, having crossed the line in third.

While Briatore said he accepted the decision, he also appeared to question the impartiality of one of the four ICA judges - Filippo Marchino - on the panel during the August hearing.

Reading from a piece of paper that he continued to refer to, Briatore claimed Marchino had been "very nasty during the hearing" and was "acting as a prosecutor".

"And after, we found out what is the reason why he's so nasty, this guy? He's very linked with McLaren. I'm very surprised this guy has the link with McLaren," Briatore said.

That McLaren mention is pertinent because it was one of two teams, alongside Red Bull, that had appealed the decision to reinstate Gasly to third place.

In a statement released on Saturday morning, the FIA Court of Appeal rejected any suggestion that the process of its selection of judges had not been impartial.

It did not name Briatore directly but said the comments related to case ICA-2026-06-07-08-09 - the hearing for the case brought by McLaren and Red Bull.

"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," the FIA statement read.

"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."

The International Court of Appeal has a roster of 36 leading legal experts, at least eight of whom are selected to be part of a pool that can be picked for each case.

This pool is communicated to relevant parties ahead of time to assess whether there are any "serious and objective reasons to consider that any or all of the shortlisted judges should be recused due to the existence of a conflict of interest or other legitimate grounds".

The statement said this had happened, with the relevant parties "invited to raise any issue concerning the proceedings or the composition of the court".

"None did so," the statement added. "No objection was raised during the hearing concerning the manner in which the court questioned the witness or conducted the proceedings.

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

"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."