Hadjar’s Monaco podium reinstated on appeal as Gasly loses out

The FIA’s International Court of Appeal has reinstated Isack Hadjar’s podium finish in the Monaco Grand Prix by ruling Pierre Gasly’s time penalties in the race must stand.

Gasly crossed the line third but with two five-second time penalties for speeding in the pit lane, demoting him to seventh place and promoting Hadjar to the podium. Hadjar was able to celebrate at the time (pictured above), but Alpine successfully called for a review of Gasly’s penalty on the basis that the pit lane monitoring system was incorrectly set up and that he had not exceeded the speed limit.

That decision led to further appeals from McLaren and Red Bull because a number of drivers – including Oscar Piastri, Lewis Hamilton and George Russell – had taken pit lane speeding penalties during the race. McLaren and Red Bull took the matter to the ICA, arguing that Gasly was being judged by different parameters to those penalized in-race.

The ICA stated it is able to amend race results when "considering the fundamental principle of sporting fairness and avoiding any unfair treatment of anyone” and determined the Official Timing System (OTS) had been consistently applied during the weekend, even if it was proven that the timing loops had been set up incorrectly.

It also found that Alpine’s own evidence claiming Gasly had not exceeded the 60km/h limit was a best estimate, and did not establish his actual traveled distance or average speed, leading it to reject the stewards’ opinion that the evidence approached proof beyond reasonable doubt.

As part of a decision spanning 101 clauses, the ICA, said:

“The Court also considers the consequences for sporting fairness and equal treatment. The evidentiary record included McLaren's traversal analysis, which recorded 423 pit lane traversals across the weekend, of which 11 resulted in speeding penalties; the FIA itself recited those figures in its response.

“The overwhelming majority of traversals therefore did not trigger an infringement under the common OTS benchmark. Competitors were able to observe the OTS outputs during practice and calibrate their limiters and driving approach accordingly. Those who left greater margins sacrificed potential sporting performance in order to remain within the official benchmark.

“The fact that some competitors later served penalties in-race is not, by itself, the source of the Court's conclusion. The more fundamental point is that the Competition had already been conducted under a common parameter that was repeatedly represented by FOM as correct.

“Selectively applying a different post-race parameter to Car 10 would mean that competitors who calibrated and competed against the common benchmark would be judged by one standard, while Car 10 would ultimately be judged by another. That result is incompatible with the requirement of consistent and equal application under Article A9.4.3 of the F1 General Regulations.”

Upon the publication of the decision – that lowers Alpine’s constructors’ championship points by nine points and boosts Racing Bulls by four points as both cars regain a position – Alpine says it disagrees with the outcome, with the team and the FIA each having to bear 50% of the legal costs.

“The team expresses its disappointment and frustration with the outcome reached by the FIA International Court of Appeal relating to the result of the 2026 Monaco Grand Prix,” a team statement read. “While we disagree with the decision, and still fully maintain that Car 10 did not exceed the Pit Lane speed limit at any point during the race, the team acknowledges the decision of the judging panel from the recent hearing in Paris.

"While the result is not what we had hoped for, as we feel that we have been unjustly punished, the team is firmly focused on continuing to improve its performance on track and remains in a close and very competitive championship fight. This outcome will not deter the team’s efforts and motivation in achieving its objectives by the end of the season.”