The highest tribunal in world motorsport is set to deliberate on the decision to rescind Pierre Gasly’s Monaco pit lane speeding penalties after McLaren confirmed it would take the case to the FIA International Court of Appeal.

Red Bull Racing has also reportedly lodged an appeal against the stewards verdict that promoted Gasly to the podium in Monte Carlo, while Mercedes is talking to the FIA about its own intention to appeal the case.

Gasly finished the Monaco Grand Prix third on the road but had 10 seconds added to his race time for two pit lane speeding infringements, demoting him to seventh.

Fox Sports, available on Kayo Sports, is the only place to watch every practice, qualifying session and race in the 2026 FIA Formula One World Championship™ LIVE in 4K. New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1.

The Frenchman was one of five drivers pinged for speeding in the pit lane and the only one penalised twice. An unusually high 11 penalties were handed out over the course of the weekend, compared to the five handed out over previous five rounds of the season.

Alpine lodged a petition for a right of review over Gasly’s speeding penalties, however, and successfully argued to the stewards that the Monte Carlo pit lane had been incorrectly measured, resulting in inaccurate speed readings.

Pit lane speed is measured by a series of telemetry loops that calculate average speed. The distance between the first two loops was found to be 77 centimetres shorter than accounted for due to a subtle change in the alignment of the pit lane this season, which meant drivers were calculated to have been travelling faster than they actually were.

The stewards rescinded Gasly’s post-race penalties, which promoted him back to the podium. Because only Alpine appealed — and the team appealed only Gasly’s penalties — only the Frenchman’s penalties were expunged.

PIT TALK PODCAST: Lewis Hamilton scores his first win for Ferrari in a strategic showdown in Spain — but is the surging seven-time champion in the title fight? And why don’t we know the result of the Monaco podium yet more than a week after the race? | Listen to Pit Talk here >

Red Bull Racing’s Isack Hadjar, who was promoted to the podium after Gasly’s penalty, was demoted back to fourth.

However, other teams weren’t in a position to appeal their penalties given three of the other five affected drivers served them during the race. Only Franco Colapinto in the other Alpine car had his speeding fine added post race, though the Argentine finished outside the points.

Lewis Hamilton managed to serve his five-second penalty without losing second place, but Oscar Piastri dropped from what would have been third down to fourth after his five-second hold, with fourth becoming fifth following Gasly’s successful appeal.

George Russell would have been in a position to finish third ahead of Piastri, however, until he and his Mercedes team failed to serve his speeding penalty at his next pit stop, the automatic punishment for which was the drive-through penalty that dropped him disastrously out of the points.

‘It’s not over that’s for sure’ | 00:57

The cascading effect of the penalties on the finishing order is why the Gasly decision has put so many teams off-side. Though he drove a strong race, he wouldn’t have been in a position to finish on the podium had none of the speeding penalties been handed out in the first place.

The stewards pre-empted that some drivers would be relatively worse off as a result of their ruling.

“The stewards note that in relation to other cars that were penalised, some served their penalty and this regrettably impacted their race strategies and therefore their race result,” they wrote in their ruling.

“There will undoubtedly remain questions as to whether those breaches were genuine.

“Notably, no other party petitioned for a right of review within the allowable time frame.

“There is no regulation that gives the stewards the power to ‘undo’ a served penalty. In any case, it is impossible to imagine how such power could be applied.”

Red Bull Racing and McLaren, listed as observers in the original appeal, were noted to have argued that teams had been aware of a discrepancy in the speed measurement system and that most had adjusted the processes accordingly to avoid being pinged — and 17 off the 22 drivers did not trigger the speed gun.

Teams know how pit lane speed is measured and know that it is not precisely accurate, with calibration part of weekend preparation.

Although such discrepancies are rare, they’re also not unheard of, with Sebastian Vettel penalised at the 2009 Singapore Grand Prix for fundamentally the same reason.

Piastri said he was “mind-blown” by the decision to reinstate Gasly to the podium.

“How you can reverse a decision that was ultimately wrong but when other people have been penalised for the same thing and served a penalty in the race — how you can then change one penalty, knowing that probably five or six other races have been impacted by that — is astonishing,” he said, per the BBC.

“I’ve obviously lost a position, but you can only imagine how George is feeling, so I could not believe my eyes.

“Yes, I lost the position to Pierre because I served the penalty, so technically I should be P3. But then technically George should be P3, and the whole thing is now a mess.

“[It’s] quite the predicament they’ve got themselves into, and I don’t know how you get yourself out of that one, because now the precedent is: you don’t serve the penalty, you take it to court, you wait probably a few months to decide the race, and who the hell wants to go racing like that?”

‘This one is something else’ | 01:29

McLaren, reflecting that position, is now taking the matter to the FIA International Court of Appeal, the highest tribunal in world motorsport.

“While we fully respect the FIA’s judicial processes and the role of the stewards, we believe this case raises important questions concerning sporting fairness, regulatory consistency and the integrity of competition,” the team said in a statement.

“Throughout the Monaco Grand Prix weekend — and in every event — all teams operated according to the regulations and established standard practices for what concerns the speed limit in the pit lane as they were applied at the time. Competitors adjusted their procedures accordingly and, where required, accepted and served penalties imposed under those regulations.

“In our view, the subsequent removal of penalties creates a situation in which some competitors are disadvantaged by having acted in accordance with the rules and the stewards’ decisions. Such an outcome risks creating sporting inequity and undermining confidence in the consistent application of the FIA sporting regulations.

“Our decision to appeal is not directed at any competitor. Rather, it reflects our belief that the championship benefits from regulations that are applied consistently, transparently and fairly to all participants.

“McLaren remains committed to working constructively with the FIA, Formula 1 and fellow competitors to protect the integrity of the sport and maintain confidence in its regulatory framework.”

Hamilton overcome after iconic victory | 01:27

WHAT IS THE FIA INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL?

The FIA International Court of Appeal is the highest tribunal in world motorsport. Though it is set up by FIA statutes, it is in practice totally independent of the governing body in the way it operates.

It works much like a civil court, with judges presiding over the case and with appellants and respondents represented by lawyers, who are able to call witnesses to testify. Hearings are generally open to the media and the public unless there is cause to preserve confidentiality.

This case will be heard by at least three judges from a list of 36 possible appointees and presided over by the court president. At least one of the judges will be agreed upon by at least five of the Formula 1 teams, and the parties to the hearing can have judges excluded from selection if they believe they would have a conflict of interest.

McLaren was required to pay a non-refundable €5000 fee ($8214) fee and lodge a €20,000 ($32,855) deposit to bring the case.

The team now has 15 days to submit formal grounds for appeal, after which the respondent — in this case the FIA — will have a further 15 days to submit a formal response. Appeal grounds must be written in French and English, with five copies of each required to be sent by post the court’s address in Paris. One copy of each language version must be sent by email.

The hearing can take place no earlier than 15 days after both parties have submitted their basic arguments.

If both parties take the maximum 15 days to respond, a hearing into the Monaco Grand Prix podium would not take place until 31 July at the earliest, 54 days after the race took place — though the president of the court can fast-track proceedings if agreed by all parties.

However, 31 July would fall near the window when teams ordinarily undertake their mandatory 14-days shutdown, which could blow out the timeline further — although it’s unclear whether an appeal would be an exempt activity.

At the end of hearings, parties make their closing statements, and the judges then deliberate in private. A decision is reached by a simple majority vote between them, with the court president having a casting vote. The decision and reasons for it are made public, but the judges’ deliberations and voting outcome remain private.

The judges can then decide if costs should be awarded to either party and whether the appeal deposit is refunded.

All parties agree that an ICA decision is final, with F1 participants agreeing that the FIA judicial system can decide all relevant sporting matters to prevent the sport ending up in civilian courts.

The ICA has several hearings a year, though it hears appeals from world championships less frequently.

It last heard a Formula 1 case in 2018, when Haas appealed Romain Grosjean’s exclusion from the Italian Grand Prix after Renault successfully protested the floor of his car, which the FIA technical delegate then declared illegal.

Haas took the matter to the International Court of Appeal, which heard the case two months after the race and upheld the disqualification.