Alpine succeed in first stage of Right of Review request over Gasly’s penalties

The FIA stewards have approved Alpine’s request to review the decision to issue two penalties to Pierre Gasly.

The team brought a Right of Review request in response to Gasly’s two five-second time penalties which were applied after the end of the race. He originally crossed the line in third place but was relegated to seventh by the two penalties.

In order for the stewards to agree to a hearing, Alpine had to persuade them that they had new and relevant evidence for consideration. The stewards accepted their argument and consented to proceed to the second part of the hearing to determine whether the penalties should be overturned.

Alpine claimed both the FIA and FOM – the latter being the supplier of the timekeeping system – were aware of a fault with the timing loops in the pit lane before the race. The team claimed the stewards were not aware of this. It also provided evidence from FOM claiming “the distance used in calculating the F1 Official Timing (and hence the pit lane speed) was inaccurate and overestimated the speed of car 10.”

Gasly was one of five drivers penalised for exceeding the pit lane speed limit but the only one to do so twice. Another was his team mate Franco Colapinto.

Representatives of eight other teams attended the hearing including those of two other drivers who were penalised: McLaren (Oscar Piastri) and Ferrari (Lewis Hamilton). Mercedes, whose driver George Russell was penalised, did not attend. Red Bull, Racing Bulls, Aston Martin, Haas, Audi and Cadillac also sent representatives.

The initial hearing began at 1pm and lasted 10 minutes. The second part was due to begin following a 10-minute break.

Go ad-free for just £1 per month

>> Find out more and sign up

FIA statement on Alpine’s Right of Review request

The Stewards have received in writing two petitions from BWT Alpine F1 Team (“Alpine”) for them to review, in accordance with Article 14 of the FIA International Sporting Code, the Decisions contained in Documents 73 and 75, rendered by the Stewards at the 2026 Monaco Formula 1 Grand Prix.

For ease of reference, the petition relating to Document 73 will be referred to as the first petition and the one relating to Document 75 will be referred to as the second petition.

The Stewards have determined, with the agreement of the concerned parties, that the two petitions shall be dealt with concurrently as they are substantially the same for all intents and purposes.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and

The Stewards convened a Hearing in two parts, for 1300 hrs CEST Thursday June 11, 2026 via video conference. The first part of the Hearing was to determine
a) The admissibility of each petition
b) Whether there is significant and relevant new element which was unavailable to the Stewards at the time of each of the original decisions, there being no hearing conducted at the time of those decisions.

In addition to those summoned (refer below) representatives of the following competitors requested, and were granted permission, to attend the hearing:

McLaren Mastercard F1 Team
Oracle Red Bull Racing
Scuderia Ferrari HP
VISA Cash App Racing Bulls Formula One Team
Aston Martin Aramco Formula One Team
TGR Haas F1 Team
Audi Revolut F1 Team
Cadillac Formula 1 Team

The Petitioner was asked if there was any objection to the composition of the Panel. No objection was raised.

Deadline: The petitions were received within the 96-hour in accordance with Article 14.4.1 of the ISC
Deposit: The required deposits for each of the two petitions were correctly lodged directly with the FIA as per the usual arrangement for Formula 1.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and

The Stewards, having examined the petitions and associated submissions, summoned and heard the team representatives, FIA representatives, and FOM (as the Official Timekeeping Supplier for the Competition), (Documents numbered 94, 95, 96 and 97) determine the following:

Decision 1: The petition of review in relation to the first petition is admissible.
Decision 2: The petition of review in relation to the second petition is admissible.

Competitors are reminded that, in accordance with Article 14.3 of the FIA International Sporting Code,

Decisions 1 and 2 are subject to appeal.

Decision 3: There is a significant and relevant new element which was unavailable to the Stewards at the time of the decision in Document 73, no hearing having been conducted at the time.
Decision 4: There is a significant and relevant new element which was unavailable to the Stewards at the time of the decision in Document 75, no hearing having been conducted at the time.

Reasons (which apply to both Decisions 3 and 4):

1. Significance
In its written submission, Alpine argued that there were four matters which demonstrated the “significance” of the element namely
a. That the FIA and FOM, but not the Race Stewards, were aware in advance of the race that there was an issue with the timing loops in the pit lane
b. That Alpine had data with demonstrated that the driver of Car 10 (Pierre Gasly) activated the pin [sic] lane speed limiter in advance of entry into the pit land and did not exceed the pit lane speed limit
c. A witness statement from Pierre Gasly that he took a cautious approach before entering the pit lane having been warned by his engineers
d. FOM, as Official Timekeeping Supplier to the Competition, provided evidence that the distance used in calculating the F1 Official Timing (and hence the pit lane speed) was inaccurate and overestimated the speed of Car 10

The Stewards determine that item d. above is sufficient on its own to meet the required standard of “significant”.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and

[It is NOTED that the FIA and FOM representatives strongly refuted the assertion in “Significance” point 1a, that they had advance awareness of the issue with the timing loops in pit lane.

The Stewards also NOTED that they became concerned after the third alleged speeding breach was reported to them by the Official Timekeeper, and at that time asked Race Control if it was aware of any issue or irregularity with the system. Race Control reported back that it raised the matter with the Official Timekeeper and was reassured that there were no issues.]

2. Relevance

In its written submission, Alpine argued that the new element was relevant in that it directly related to the speed of Car 10 in the Pit Lane. The Stewards determine that this meets the standard of “relevant”.

3. New Element

The information concerning the inaccurate distance measurement was provided by FOM on Wednesday

June 10, therefore was “new” and unavailable to the Stewards at the time of the two decisions referred to in Documents 73 and 75 (June 7).

Conclusion: Both the first and second petitions meet the required standards for a Right of Review in accordance with Article 14.1.1 of the FIA International Sporting Code.

Accordingly Part 2 of the Hearing will be conducted into both matters referred to in Documents 73 and 75. With the agreement of the parties, both Hearings will be conducted concurrently.

Part 1 of the Hearing adjourned at 1310hrs CEST and will resume at 1320 hrs CEST Competitors are reminded that, in accordance with Article 14.3 of the FIA International Sporting Code, Decisions 3 and 4 are not subject to appeal.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and

2026 Monaco Grand Prix

• Alpine succeed in first stage of Right of Review request over Gasly’s penalties
• “Stroll the usual idiot”: Aston Martin driver frustrated leaders in Monaco GP
• Stats: Antonelli smashes record for youngest-ever ‘grand slam’
• FIA to hear Alpine’s review request over Gasly’s penalties on Thursday
• Mercedes explain pit stop error which led to Russell’s costly Monaco Grand Prix penalty

Browse all 2026 Monaco Grand Prix articles