Alpine Wins Initial Review Request Over Gasly Penalties

The FIA stewards have accepted Alpine’s request to review the decision that imposed two penalties on Pierre Gasly.

Alpine filed a Right of Review petition after Gasly received two five‑second time penalties applied after the race had finished. Gasly initially crossed the line in third place but was demoted to seventh following those penalties.

To secure a hearing, Alpine needed to show the stewards that new and relevant evidence had become available. The FIA has concluded that sufficient new material exists, and a review will now proceed to determine whether the penalties should be overturned.

FIA statement on Alpine’s Right of Review request

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

The petition relating to Document 73 will be referred to as the first petition and the one relating to Document 75 as the second petition.

The Stewards 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.

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

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 limit 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.

The Stewards, having examined the petitions and associated submissions, and having 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 to review Document 73 is admissible.
Decision 2: The petition to review Document 75 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
Alpine identified four matters it said demonstrated the significance of the new element:
a. That the FIA and FOM, but not the Race Stewards, were allegedly aware in advance of the race of an issue with timing loops in the pit lane;
b. Data from Alpine showing Car 10 (Pierre Gasly) activated the pit‑lane speed limiter before entering the pit lane and did not exceed the speed limit;
c. A witness statement from Pierre Gasly that he took a cautious approach before entering the pit lane after being warned by his engineers;
d. Evidence from FOM that the distance used in calculating the F1 Official Timing (and therefore pit‑lane speed) was inaccurate, resulting in an overestimation of Car 10’s speed.

The Stewards determine that item d alone is sufficient to meet the required standard of “significant”.

It is noted that FIA and FOM representatives strongly refuted Alpine’s assertion that they had advance awareness of a timing loop issue. The Stewards also noted that, after the third alleged speeding breach was reported by the Official Timekeeper, they asked Race Control whether any system issue or irregularity was known. Race Control indicated it had raised the matter with the Official Timekeeper and had been reassured there were no issues.

2. Relevance
Alpine argued the new element is directly related to the speed recorded for Car 10 in the pit lane. The Stewards determine this meets the standard of “relevant”.

3. New Element
The information about the inaccurate distance measurement was provided by FOM on Wednesday 10 June, and therefore constituted new evidence unavailable to the Stewards at the time of the two decisions on 7 June.

Conclusion: Both 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 proceed concurrently.

Part 1 of the Hearing adjourned at 13:10 CEST and will resume at 13:20 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.

This article will be updated

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter andgo ad-free

Go ad-free for just £1 per month>> Find out more and sign up

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