Note: Please note that this index is provided for guidance only and has no binding force. The International Court of Appeal is not bound by its previous decisions.

Appellant Competitor Sporting Rules and issues No. Date Contested Act(s) Decision of the Court (ASN) appealing discipline examined

ICA-2018-10 16.11.2018 Direct Haas 2018 FIA Decision No. 42 dated 2 Non-compliance of the A competitor has to accept that if it does not appeal Formula 1 September 2018, taken by Car’s reference plane comply with a Technical Directive, the evidence Championship the Stewards of the 2018 => disqualification or the submissions it intends to bring as an Italian Grand Prix held at alternative to those foreseen by that Technical Monza What does “each front Directive might not satisfy the Technical corner” mean under Delegate, the Stewards or, in the present case, the Technical the Court. Regulations (methods of interpretation of Meeting the requirements set by the applicable regulations) technical regulations is an absolute and objective test. Legal value of Technical directive The responsibility of the competitors to ensure the technical conformity of their car is absolute Legal value of a “period and objective. The Appellant does not put of grace” forward any extenuating and exceptional circumstances (like a clerical error or a mistake [Article 2.4 & 3.7.1 (d) on the official homologation document)s that of the 2018 FIA could be considered as a good reason for the Formula One Technical application of a less severe sanction than Regulations] disqualification

[Articles 3.2 and 3.3 of The appeal is rejected the 2018 Formula One Sporting Regulations] The Court:

- upheld the contested decision [Article 11.9.1 of the - rejects the request made by Renault ISC] (third-party) to deduct a further 10 points in relation to another breach [Article 10.9 par. 1 and committed at the occasion of another 11.3 of the JDR] GP (lack of jurisdiction) ICA-2018-09 29.08.2018 Direct Charouz 2018 FIA Decision No 29 dated 29 Failed to serve a time The appeal was withdrawn appeal Racing Formula 2 July 2018 of the Stewards penalty at next pit System Championship of the Race of Budapest stop => 3 place grid The appeal fee was returned with a deduction of penalty in the driver’s € 3,000 considered the timing of the withdrawal next race and the work already done by the ICA on the case [Art. 38.1 & 38.3(a) of the F2 Sporting Regulations] ICA-2018-08 24.09.2018 Direct Münnich 2018 FIA World Decisions No. 30 of 14 July Joined case with ICA- It is not only up to the competitors, but also to appeal Motorsport Touring Car 2018 taken by the 2018-06 & ICA-2018-07 the Stewards, Scrutineers and any other official Cup (WTCR) Stewards of the or competent committees of the FIA, to strictly competition “Race of Non-compliance of the meet the standards that apply to them. Slovakia” engine speed and boost pressure values with The decision of the Technical Committee, which the “Balance of adjusts the maximum boost pressure, was taken Performance Chart” in an irregular manner, and must therefore be regarded as void, and could thus not form the Competency and basis of the contested Decisions through lack of procedure to establish applicability. and to modify the “Balance of While the maximum boost pressure had been Performance Chart” adjusted by the TC, this was not the case for the maximum engine speed. [Articles 3.8 & 80 of the 2018 WTCR Sportings Münnich’s car was only in breach with maximum Regulations] boost pressure.

[Article 3.1 of the 2018 Decision No. 30 taken against Münnich’s car TCR regulations] must be quashed in the absence of legal

2

foundation

ICA-2018-07 24.09.2018 Direct Boutsen 2018 FIA World Decisions No. 32 of 14 July Joined case with ICA- It is not only up to the competitors, but also to appeal Ginion Touring Car 2018 taken by the 2018-06 & ICA-2018-08 the Stewards, Scrutineers and any other official Racing Cup (WTCR) Stewards of the or competent committees of the FIA, to strictly competition “Race of Non-compliance of the meet the standards that apply to them. Slovakia” engine speed and boost pressure values with The decision of the Technical Committee, which the “Balance of adjusts the maximum boost pressure, was taken Performance Chart” in an irregular manner, and must therefore be regarded as void, and could thus not form the Competency and basis of the contested Decisions through lack of procedure to establish applicability. and to modify the “Balance of While the maximum boost pressure had been Performance Chart” adjusted by the TC, this was not the case for the maximum engine speed. [Articles 3.8 & 80 of the 2018 WTCR Sportings BGR’s car was in breach with maximum boost Regulations] pressure but also with maximum engine speed.

[Article 3.1 of the 2018 Decision No. 30 taken against BGR’s car must be TCR regulations] hupheld

[Article 1.1.1 of the The Court specifies that the disqualification International Sportig imposed by the Stewards and confirmed by the Code] Court refers to a qualifying session of the Competition and, in pursuance of the principle [Preamble of the JDR] of sporting fairness, must lead to the disqualification of these same cars from Races 2 and 3 of the Competition

3

ICA-2018-06 24.09.2018 Direct Boutsen 2018 FIA World Decisions No. 31 of 14 July Joined case with ICA- It is not only up to the competitors, but also to appeal Ginion Touring Car 2018 taken by the 2018-07 & ICA-2018-08 the Stewards, Scrutineers and any other official Racing Cup (WTCR) Stewards of the or competent committees of the FIA, to strictly competition “Race of Non-compliance of the meet the standards that apply to them. Slovakia” engine speed and boost pressure values with The decision of the Technical Committee, which the “Balance of adjusts the maximum boost pressure, was taken Performance Chart” in an irregular manner, and must therefore be regarded as void, and could thus not form the Competency and basis of the contested Decisions through lack of procedure to establish applicability. and to modify the “Balance of While the maximum boost pressure had been Performance Chart” adjusted by the TC, this was not the case for the maximum engine speed. [Articles 3.8 & 80 of the 2018 WTCR Sportings BGR’s car was in breach with maximum boost Regulations] pressure but also with maximum engine speed.

[Article 3.1 of the 2018 Decision No. 30 taken against BGR’s car must be TCR regulations] hupheld

[Article 1.1.1 of the The Court specifies that the disqualification International Sportig imposed by the Stewards and confirmed by the Code] Court refers to a qualifying session of the Competition and, in pursuance of the principle [Preamble of the JDR] of sporting fairness, must lead to the disqualification of these same cars from Races 2 and 3 of the Competition

ICA-2018-05 12.07.2018 Direct Boccolacci 2018 Decision No. 18 of the ICA jurisdiction The appeal was withdrawn appeal International Stewards of the Le Series GP3 Castellet event The appeal fee was fully returned

4

ICA-2018-04 18.09.2018 Direct TDS 2018-2019 FIA Decision No. 75 dated 18 Joined case with ICA- It is the duty of each Competitor to satisfy the appeal World June 2018 of the Stewards 2018-03 Scrutineers and the Stewards of the Meeting Endurance of the Meeting in that his car complies with these regulations in Championship Le Mans Non compliance of the their entirety at all times during an event (WEC) the refuelling assemblies of the Technical Regulations do not allow the the Appellants’ cars competitors to add new elements to the Definition of a “fitting” refuelling system, apart from the necessary fittings which should hold those elements [Appendix A of the together Technical Regulations (2018) for LMP2] It is not allowable to have a compliant part which is rendered redundant by another part [Article 2.1.1 of the Technical Regulations] It is the established precedent of the Court, that to ensure fairness and sporting equity, to [Article 12.1.1.c of the impose the sanction of disqualification in International Sporting situations of non compliance with Technical Code] Regulations (except when the breach was caused by a clerical error or a mistake on the official homologation documents)

The responsibility of the competitors to ensure technical conformity of their car is absolute and objective

The appeal was rejected ICA-2018-03 18.09.2018 Direct G-Drive 2018-2019 FIA Decision No. 74 dated 18 Joined case with ICA- It is the duty of each Competitor to satisfy the appeal World June 2018 of the Stewards 2018-04 Scrutineers and the Stewards of the Meeting Endurance of the Meeting in that his car complies with these regulations in Championship Le Mans Non compliance of the their entirety at all times during an event (WEC) the refuelling assemblies of the Technical Regulations do not allow the the Appellants’ cars competitors to add new elements to the Definition of a “fitting” refuelling system, apart from the necessary fittings which should hold those elements

5

[Appendix A of the together Technical Regulations (2018) for LMP2] It is not allowable to have a compliant part which is rendered redundant by another part [Article 2.1.1 of the Technical Regulations] It is the established precedent of the Court, that to ensure fairness and sporting equity, to [Article 12.1.1.c of the impose the sanction of disqualification in International Sporting situations of non compliance with Technical Code] Regulations (except when the breach was caused by a clerical error or a mistake on the official homologation documents)

The responsibility of the competitors to ensure technical conformity of their car is absolute and objective

The appeal was rejected ICA-2018-02 19.09.2018 MSA Lennox 2018 CIK-FIA Decision n° 68 taken by Disqualification of The appeal was withdrawn by the Appellant. European the Stewards on 16 June Qualifying Heat for Junior 2018 within the context of having caused a On request of the FIA, the ICA decided that the Championship the competition collision Driver be disqualifies from the official of Ampfing (Germany) classification of the final phase of the Unduly benefit from competition (it does not increase the penalty the suspensive effect imposed by the Stewards with this decision, but resulting from the simply draws the consequences of the appeal withdrawal of the appeal which leads to the lifting of the suspensive effect of the Sporting fairness appeal)

[Art. 2.24 of the CIK-FIA General Prescriptions]

[Art. 1.1.1 of the ISC]

6

ICA-2018-01 04.05.2018 Direct M-Sport 2018 World Decision No.7 dated 11 Driver hit the chicane “Guidelines”, which do not form part of the appeal Ford Rally March 2018 of the during Power Stage = Regulations applicable to the Rally. Championship Stewards of the Rally 10 second time penalty Guanajuato Mexico The Stewards are in the best position with Binding value of regards to their best knowledge of the relevant “Guidelines” facts in a given time and a given place, which the Court cannot obviously have, to assess which Equality of treatment particular incident committed by a particular rider has to be sanctioned or not. Sporting advantage The purpose of the Decision is to sanction the [2018 WRC Sporting Appellant’s car No. 1 and not to compensate for Regulations, art. 13.3.4 any time gained during the incident and art. 14.2] [FIA Rally Safety Security Guidelines] ICA-2017-02 27.09.2017 KNAF Ekris 2017 GT4 Decision of the Tribunal Turbo pressure too The appeal was withdrawn by the Appellant. Motorsport European d’Appel National of the high = Exclusion of the Series Southern Fédération Française du race Cup Sport Automobile (FFSA) of 12 July 2017 which [art. 4.4 of the GT4 confirms decision n°36 of European Series the College of Stewards of Regulations] the GT4 European Series Southern Cup ICA-2017-01 31.07.2017 JAF Toyota 2017 FIA World Stewards’ decision No. 19 Cleaning the mirrors The appeal was withdrawn by the Appellant. Gazoo Endurance of the meeting of round 4 during refueling is Racing Championship of the FIA WEC (6 hours of authorized Nürburgring, 13-16 July 2017) [art. 10.8.4 of the WEC Sporting Regulations] ICA-2016-05 03.02.2017 SAMF Yasir 2016 FIA World Decision No. 9 dated 15 Rear rigid axle, more Subject to very specific cases (burden of proof Seaidan Cup for Cross- December 2016 of the specifically the housing, being on the Appellant), possible procedural Country Rallies Stewards of the 2016 did technically not mistakes committed by the Stewards are cured Morocco Cross-Country conform to the by the devolutive effect of the appeal before the Rally (Morocco) applicable regulations = Court

7

exclusion + € 6,000 fine Lex generalis vs lex specialis

ICA-2016-04 16.09.2016 ACCUS Dragon 2015-2016 FIA Decisions Nos 5 and 10 Maximum energy The Appellant failed to provide proof that the Racing Formula E dated 3 July 2016 of the allowance = drive- intention of appeal had been given within one Championship Stewards of the through penalty hour. Competition of London (converted in 50 seconds penalty) The penalties of driving through and stopping in Emerging from the pit pit lanes and certain other penalties, including lane in a potentially the time penalties, cannot be subject to an dangerous manner appeal. (one-second penalty) Content of the The Court stressed that it was not bound by notification of appeal precedents, especially when it came to a legal (reasons of the appeal) issue which had been dealt with only once by [Article 10.1.1 of the the ICA. Judiciary and Disciplinary Rules] The FIA can freely decide how to organise its Decisions which cannot internal processes, which are clearly regulated be subject to an appeal by the ISC and the Regulations. [Article 12.2.4 of the International Sporting The Court can only check whether the Stewards Code] are competent to impose time penalties, which [Article 16.3 of the was indeed so in the present case Formula E The appeals were inadmissible Championship Sporting Regulations] ICA-2016-03 09.06.2016 ACI-CSAI Honda 2016 FIA World Decisions Nos 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 Compliance of the flat Stewards may only delegate their authority to Racing Touring Car and 8 dated 26 May 2016 bottom and the rear the Stewards of the subsequent event Team Jas Championship of the Stewards of the hatch The Stewards having declared the cars compliant (WTCC) Race of Germany related [Article 263 of the and authorised their start the competitors must to the Races of Hungary International Sporting be able to rely on the decisions issued by the and Morocco Code] Stewards in compliance with the principle of Delegation of powers legal certainty of the stewards The modification of a homologated part without

8

[Article 11.9.2.s of the explicit permission has to be considered in itself International Sporting as a breach of the Regulations, even if the Code] modification could have been homologated The performance advantage would never be taken into account to determine the sanction to be imposed (Article 1.3.3 of the ISC) The appeal was partially upheld ICA-2016-02 13.07.2016 JAF Toyota 2016 World Decision No. 55 dated 7 Minimum driving time The notification of appeal did not include the Gazoo Endurance May 2016 of the Stewards => time penalty equal “reasons for bringing the appeal” (Article 10.1.1 Racing Championship of the 6 Hours of Spa- to the missing driving of the Judiciary and Disciplinary Rules); (WEC) Francorchamps time. The wording of Article 10.1.1 did not provide any [Article 10.10.2 of the margin of appreciation as to whether the lack of 2016 WEC Sporting any of the listed formal requirements in the Regulations] Notification of the appeal was of crucial or Content of the clerical nature; notification of appeal The appeal was inadmissible. (reasons of the appeal) [Article 10.1.1 of the Judiciary and Disciplinary Rules

ICA-2016-01 27.05.2016 DMSB X-Raid 2016 Dakar Decision dated 2 March Refuelling during a The interpretation of the Dakar 2016 2016 of the National Court Neutralisation section Cars/Trucks Regulations on whether refuelling of Appeal of the [Dakar 2016 was authorised or not “within the neutralisation Fédération Française du Cars/Trucks of a selective section” is a key argument of this Sport Automobile (FFSA), Regulations] case; having ruled on an appeal This interpretation must be made in compliance brought by X-raid with the requirements set out in Articles 1156 et Motorsport GmbH against seq. of the French Code Civil; Decision No. 2.14 taken by In the present case, it must be concluded that the Stewards of the Dakar the “Neutralisation section” is a “road section” 2016 on 12 January 2016 in which the Regulations authorise refuelling: The appeal must be rejected

9

ICA-2015-06 18.12.2016 FAMS Tsunami 2015 Porsche Decision No. 9/15 dated 5 Misconduct during the Both the national and international courts of Carrera Cup November 2015 of the race appeal must exercise restraint when it comes to Italia National Tribunal of [Articles 144, 123 ter the pure assessment of a race incident and of Appeal of the Automobile and 165 lit. A of the the sanction imposed on a competitor by the Club d’Italia-Commissione National Sporting Stewards Sportiva Automobilistica Regulations] In the present case, it did not find decisive Italiana (ACI-CSAI) having elements which would lead it to set aside both ruled on an appeal lodged Decisions and to change the sanction imposed by Antonelli Motorsport on the competitor against the decision No. 7 The appeal must be rejected dated 17 October 2015 of The Court recalled that according to the the Stewards of the Regulations the parties must bear their own Mugello competition expenses or legal defense fees; (Italy) The costs related to the Italian translation (at the request of the parties) are borne equally between them. ICA-2015-05 18.12.2015 ACI-CSAI Honda 2015 FIA World Decision No. 12 dated 1 Non-compliance of The appeal was withdrawn by the Appellant. Racing Touring Car November 2015 of the ground clearance) => Team Jas Championship Stewards of the Chang exclusion (WTCC) International Circuit [Articles 5 and 6 of the (Thailand) WTCC Sporting Regulations] [Article 263-205, Appendix J and the International Sporting Code] ICA-2015-04 18.12.2015 AKK Printsport 2015 FIA World Decision No. 12 dated 21 Breach of the WRC The appeal was withdrawn by the Appellant. Motorsport Rally October 2015 of the Sporting Regulations Championship Stewards of the Tour de and the International The Court decided to restitute one half of the (WRC3/WRC Corse Sporting Code (non- appeal deposit due to the withdrawal date and Junior) compliance of the the progress that had been made in the water pump) => 60- proceedings. minute penalty

10

ICA-2015-03 28.07.2015 ÖAMTC Grasser Blancpain GT Decision dated 20 May Delegation of power of Scrutineering was not carried out in the GmbH International 2015 of the National Court Scrutineers [Article conditions set out in the Code, in that it was not Series of Appeal of the Royal 11.14 of the 2015 carried out at the request of the Clerk of the Automobile Club of International Sporting Course and/or the Stewards Belgium (RACB) taken on Code] The Court declared the appeal to be well- appeal against the Presence of an official founded and quashed the decision of the RACB decision No. 43 dated 12 representative of the Court of Appeal as well as the Stewards’ original April 2015 of the Stewards competitor during decision of the competition of scrutineering [Article Monza (Italy) 67 paragraph 3 of the GT3 Regulations] ICA-2015-02 16.07.2015 ACI-CSAI Prema Formula 3 Decision No. 45 dated 30 Power to lodge an The appellant’s ASN alone is competent to notify Powerteam May 2015 of the Stewards appeal [Article 12.1.1 the appeal on behalf of its licence-holder and it Srl of the Monza competition of the 2015 JDR] is not up to the Court to take into consideration by which the Driver was the internal misunderstandings that may arise sanctioned as a result of a Consequences of the between an appellant and its ASN collision that occurred withdrawal of an Despite the request to withdraw the appeal, the during Race No. 2 of the appeal [Article 12.2 of very particular circumstances of this case made Monza competition with the 2015 JDR] it necessary to hold a hearing to examine the obligation to start whether or not the appeal, which allowed the from the pit lane for the appellant to benefit from the suspensive effect next race the Driver will of the appeal, was of a frivolous nature participate The Court concluded that the appeal was inadmissible for not having included, within the appeal deadline, all the elements foreseen by Article 12.1.1 of the JDR The Court then referred to the general principle of economy of procedure and to the need to adopt a utilitarian approach to its mission to conclude that, in the particular circumstances of this case, it would be unwise not to resolve the fundamental question immediately. The Court decided to replace the Stewards’ decision (starting from the back of the grid) with exclusion from the race in which the competitor took part normally

11

ICA-2015-01 5.06.2015 Mr Nasser World Cup for Decision n°3 dated 2 April Power to lodge an An appeal before the ICA must be notified by the Al Attiyah Cross Country 2015 of the Stewards appeal [Article 12.1.1 ASN of the competitor, whereas in this case the Rallies under which the car of the 2015 JDR] appeal was lodged directly by a representative driven by the Appellant of the competitor had failed to meet the measurements required There is nothing in the JDR or in the Code that of its vertical suspension authorises the Stewards, or holds out that the travel Stewards as having the right, to give instructions to the competitors with respect to the appeal procedure

The appeal is inadmissible

ICA-2014- 5.12.2014 Abu Dhabi Request for ICA-2014-04 Conditions of a request A request for review can be examined only if 04.2 Racing review for reviewing a new evidence is discovered which was unknown Team previous case [Article at the outset of the case before the ICA 18.3 of the 2014 JDR] The request is dismissed ICA-2014-04 4.12.2014 QMMF Nasser Al- Middle East Decision n°1 dated 29 De novo power of the The Court has thus full authority to substitute Attiyah Rally November 2014 of the Court [Article 17.9 2014 the Stewards decision under appeal by its own Team Championship Stewards under which the JDR] decision in its full scope Appellant’s protest against Team Abu Dhabi [Article 40.6.2 of the The Court finds that ensuring during a rally that Racing’s car numbered 2 FIA Middle East Rally all competitors follow the same itinerary is a was rejected Championship Sporting specific sporting objective and that this objective Regulations which are is essential in order to ensure the fairness of the part of the FIA Regional competition, besides the impact on the safety of Rally Regulations (the the spectators. “FIA RRR”), under part “V3” (FIA RRR Appendix V3] The Court stresses that according to article 18.2 [Article 18.2 2014 JDR] JDR, the expenses or legal defence fees of the parties are not part of the costs awarded by the Court

12

The contested decision is set aside

ICA-2014-03 26.09.2014 RFEdA Campos World Touring Decision n°5 dated 3 Rights of defense Even if there was a breach of rights of defense Racing Car August 2014 of the [Article 12.3.4 of the by the stewards, such breach has been cured by Championship Stewards of the 2014 ISC] the devolutive effect of this appeal before the Argentinian competition De novo power of the Court. The same applies to the allegedly in Thermas de Rio Hondo Court [Article 17.9 2014 insufficient grounds of the Decision JDR] The administrative typewriting error made by the Stewards in their Decision did not mislead Non conformity of the the Appellant ground clearance of the The Court emphasises that the obligation front splitter [Articles 5 imposed on competitors to ensure that their and 6 of the FIA 2014 cars comply with the relevant regulations is an World Touring Car absolute and objective one and that the breach Championship Sporting of that obligation does not depend upon a fault Regulations / Article being established 263.902 of Appendix J The Court refers to previous decisions where the of the 2014 ISC] ICA stressed that exceptional circumstances in relation with technical irregularities are admitted only under very limited criteria but in the present case the Court comes to the conclusion that the circumstances put forward by the Appellant do not meet the strict and clear criteria to constitute an exceptional circumstance The Court uphelds the contested decision ICA-2014-02 17.10.2014 HKAA Team Craft GT Asia Series Decision handed down by Jurisdiction of the The Court considers that the devolutive effect of Bamboo the national court of different national the appeals brought before it does not, in legal AMR appeal of the Japan appeal bodies [Article terms, allow it to examine in depth appeals that Automobile Federation 14.1.4 and 14.3.1 of the were inadmissible before the national court, (JAF) having ruled on an 2014 ISC] given that they had been brought in the first appeal against Decision instance before an incompetent court n°15 dated 1 June 2014 The Courts fins that the appeal initially brought taken by the Stewards of before the court of appeal of the JAF was

13

the competition at inadmissible. Autopolis (Japan) The contested Stewards' Decision must consequently be regarded as definitive, notwithstanding the incorrect formal execution of procedures that the Court notes in this case In view of the circumstances of the case, the Court decides that the costs must be shared equally between the Appellant and the JAF

ICA-2014-01 14.04.2014 ÖAMTC- Infiniti Red F1 Decision dated 16th Duty to comply with The Court finds that (i) the TD are not legally OSK Bull Racing March 2014 of the Race the regulations [Article binding per se but (ii) if a competitor decides not Stewards of the 2014 5.1.4 of the FIA 2014 to follow the TD, he has to accept the risk that Australian Grand Prix by Formula One Technical the evidence he intends to bring as an which car No. 3 (Driver Regulations] alternative to that foreseen by the TD will not Daniel Ricciardo) was Fuel flow meter sensor satisfy the Technical Delegate found to be not in Duty to comply with In the present case, the appellant failed to compliance with the the regulations at any convince the Court that its car complied with Technical Regulations and time of the event Article 5.1.4 TR at all times during the event therefore excluded from [Article 2.7 TR] The Court confirms the contested decision the results of the race Legal value of the FIA technical directions ICA-2013-06 20.12.2013 ACI-CSAI Tony Kart CIK-FIA KF Decision of the Stewards Violation of the The Court confirms the contested decision Racing Junior World of the Meeting of the sporting regulations Team Championship Bahrain event dated 23 [Article 2.14.B of the November 2013 under CIK General which the Stewards prescriptions / Article decided to sanction Tony 2.c of the Code of Kart Racing Team’s driver Driving Conduct on Nikita Mazepin (RUS) with Karting Circuits] a 10-second time penalty To leave the track and to gain an advantage ICA-2013-05 10.01.2014 ACI-CSAI Romeo Superstars Decision of the Motor Duty to comply with The Court: Ferraris srl International Sports Council National the regulations [Articles 1) Sets aside the Decision of the Motor Sports Series Court of the Motor Sports 13.3.2 b3 and 13.6 of Council National Court of the Motor Sports Association (MSA) dated the Technical Association (MSA) for lack of jurisdiction; 15 October 2013, Regulations of the 2) Confirms the contested decision n° 5 dated 27

14

whereby the two Romeo International Series] September 2013 with respect to the finding that Ferraris srl’s cars were Conformity of the car’s cars n° 3 and n° 15 of Romeo Ferraris Srl did not excluded for the bonnets and flat comply with the Technical Regulations Donington Park event bottom Jurisdiction of the national tribunal [ISC, art. 182] Impossibility of increasing the sanction or disproportionate nature of the sanction [ISC, art. 189 / Article 17.9 JDR] ICA-2013-04 ACCUS Devlin De Karting Decision dated 29 Gain of position from The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant Francesco (Canadian September of the National contact [Standard Karting Court of ASN Canada FIA, karting penalties 1-15] Championship) wherein it was decided to penalize Devlin De Francesco by a loss of one position as a result of an appeal lodged against a decision taken by the Stewards of the final race of the 2013 Canadian Karting Championship ICA-2013-03 10.09.2013 RAF G-Drive WEC Decision n°36 of the Race Duty to comply with The responsibility of the competitors to ensure Racing Stewards of the Meeting the regulations [2013 technical conformity of their car is absolute and in Le Mans counting WEC Regulations, art. 6 objective towards the 2013 FIA / 2013 International This does not mean the responsibility is without World Endurance Sporting Code, art. 123] any limits, as there could potentially occur very Championship (WEC), Severity of a sanction rare and exceptional situation, where highly under which the Stewards of exclusion for exceptional circumstances may be a reason for decided to exclude G- breaching the duty to application of a less severe sanction than Drive Racing’s LMP2 car comply exclusion (not in the present case) n°26 from the Le Mans 24 The Court confirmed the Contested Decision on Hours event 2013 the basis that no exceptional circumstances

15

existed in this case

ICA-2013-02 28.02.2013 RACB Marc VDS Blancpain Decision n°3/2012 of the Power of the NCA and The Court: racing team Endurance National Appeal and of the ICA to review 1) declares void Decision n°3/2012 of the (Belgian Disciplinary Tribunal of facts and legal grounds National Appeal and Disciplinary Court of the Racing s.a.) the Spanish Royal not mentioned in the Spanish Royal Automobile Federation and Automobile Federation, Protest Decision n°13 taken by the Stewards on 14 under which the National Infringement to the October 2012 Tribunal decided to refuelling procedure 2) imposes a fine of 10,000 euros on the Belgian dismiss the appeal filed by [2012, Blancpain Audi Club Team WRT the Marc VDS racing team Endurance Series against Decision n°13 Sporting Regulations, taken by the Stewards on art. 91 & 92] 14 October 2012 concerning the Blancpain Endurance Racing Event held in Navarra (Spain) on 13 and 14 October 2012 and counting towards the Blancpain Endurance Series 2012 ICA-2013-01 15.02.2013 CBA Sergio Karting IAME Decision of the National Time limit to notify an The Court quashes the Contested Ruling Santos Court of Appeal of the appeal [JDR, art. 17.3] returned by the FFSA National Court of Appeal Sette Fédération Française du 30-day time limit for a on 4 December 2012 and confirms Decision n°41 Câmara Sport Automobile (FFSA) national court of taken by the Panel of Stewards on 21 October Filho of 4 December 2012 to appeal to issue a 2012 quash Decision N°41 decision [ISC, art. 182] taken by the Panel of Respect of adversarial Stewards of the Meeting principle and the rights on 21 October 2012 of the defense by a concerning the IAME national court of International Final – appeal-Notion of "party Category X30 Junior event concerned" [ISC, art. that took place at Saint- 182, par. 3]

16

Laurent de Mure Notion of "loss of control" [2012 General Prescriptions applicable to International Karting Events and CIK-FIA Championships, Cups and Trophies, art. 2.24]

ICA-1/2012 20.11.2012 FFSA Larbre WEC Decision n° 25 of the Race Exclusion from the The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. Competitio Stewards of the meeting Race for a ride height n in São Paulo on 15 infringement [article September 2012 – Event 10.1.1 of the LM GTE counting towards the Technical regulations 2012 FIA World for Grand Touring Car Endurance Championship 2012] (WEC) ICA-2/2011 27.10.2011 ACI-CSAI Chiesa Karting KF1 Decision n°46 taken by Causing an incident The Court confirms decision of the Panel of Corse s.a.s. the Stewards of the [2011 CIK-FIA World Stewards with regard to the responsibility of the Meeting Karting Championship incident but annuls the sanction of exclusion and on 3 September 2011 Regulations, General substitutes it with a penalty of 10 sec. concerning Race 2 of the Prescriptions, art. 2.24] event run at Genk (Belgium) Prohibited manoeuvres counting towards the liable to hinder other 2011 CIK-FIA KF1 World drivers [Code of Driving Karting Championship Conduct on Karting Circuits, art. 2-(b)] ICA-1/2011 4.11.2011 ACCUS Tanner Rallycross Decision N°1 taken by the Time-limit for paying The Court annuls decision of KNAF National Foust European Stewards of the Meeting national appeal fee Court of Appeal and annuls decision of Panel of Championship on 14 August 2011 against [2011 International Stewards with regard to the exclusion of M. Mr Tanner Foust on the Sporting Code, Art. 182 Tanner Foust. occasion of the event run and 183] at Valkenswaard Black flag; right of (Netherlands) and appeal [2011 counting towards the International Sporting 2011 FIA European Code, Art. 152, fifth

17

Championship for paragraph] Rallycross Drivers – Breach of overtaking SuperCars rules [2011 Decision handed down by International Sporting the Court of Appeal of the Code, Code of Driving KNAC Nationale Autosport Conduct on Circuits Federatie (KNAF) on 26 (art. 2-b), Chapter IV of August 2011 Appendix L)] Use of black flag [2011 International Sporting Code, art. 2.4.4.1-f) of Appendix H ; Article 16.6 of the Regulations of the 2011 FIA European Championship for Rallycross Drivers – SuperCars] 5/2010 12.11.2010 MSA Chevrolet WTCC Decisions No. 1 and 2 Homologation of car The Court annulled the Contested Decisions and 4/2010 World taken by the Panel of models - derogation excluded cars No. 10 and 11 from the results of Touring Car Stewards on 30 October reserved to use by a the Event. It ordered that, for the event held in Team 2010, confirming the disabled driver [2010 Macau (China) on 21 November 2010, any eligibility of Cars No. 10 WTCC Sporting compensation weight attributed to cars No. 10 and No. 11, both of BMW Regulations, App. 1(B)] and 11 in accordance with Article 79 of the Team RBM, to participate WTCC Sporting Regulations, be calculated on the in the event run at Authorised gearboxes basis of their results during the three events Okayama (Japan) and [2010 International preceding the Event run at Okayama. counting towards the FIA Sporting Code, App. J, WTCC 2010 Art. 263-8.1]

Calculation of compensation weights [WTCC Sporting Regulations, Art. 79]

18

3/2010 30.11.2010 RACB Prospeed GT3 Decision No. 18 taken by Responsibility of the The Court confirmed that it is the competitor’s Competitio the Panel of Stewards on competitor to ensure responsibility to produce a car that is in n 10 October 2010, car is compliant [2010 conformity. It confirmed the Contested Decision excluding the car of International Sporting insofar as it held that car no. 61 did not comply Prospeed Competition Code, App. J, Art. 257A- with its homologation form, but substituted the from the race 6 run at 2.5] exclusion imposed by the Decision with a Zolder (BE) and counting financial penalty in the amount of 10,000 euros towards the FIA GT3 upon the Appellant, in light of the exceptional Championship 2010, circumstances of the case. because its rear braking discs were not in compliance with the car’s homologation form 2/2010 29.06.2010 ACAFA - - Decision of the FIA Time-limits for The Court declared the appeal inadmissible, on General Assembly of 23 notifying an appeal to the grounds that the Appellant did not October 2009 relating to the ICA [2010 ICA Rules formulate his appeal within seven days of the the affiliation of the of Procedure, Art. 17] notification of the decision by the FIA General Automobile Club de Assembly, as required by Article 17 of the ICA l’Ouest to the FIA Rules of Procedure. The notification of the decision must be defined as the moment when the party concerned first becomes aware of it. 1/2010 18.05.2010 DMSB Young GT1 Decision No. 24 taken by Minimum thickness of The Court confirmed the Contested Decision on Driver AMR the Panel of Stewards on the friction block the basis that no exceptional circumstances 2 May 2010, excluding the [2010 International existed in this case to justify a reduction of the car of Young Driver AMR Sporting Code, penalty imposed. from the Event run at Appendix J, Art. 257- Silverstone (UK) and 3.3.2.d.3] counting towards the FIA GT1 Championship 2010, Responsibility of the because its friction block competitor to ensure failed to comply with the car is compliant [2010 minimum thickness GT1 World prescribed by Article Championship Sporting 257.3.3.2.d.3 of Appendix Regulations, Art. 5] J to the ISC

19

26/2009 23.01.2010 RACB Pekaracing GT Decision No. 18 taken by Compliance of cylinder The Court confirmed the Contested Decision NV the Panel of Stewards on heads and cylinder with respect to the finding that Pekaracing NV 5 December 2009, block with breached Article 258.5.2.1 of Appendix J, but excluding Pekaracing NV homologation form annulled the sanction of exclusion and replaced from the results of the [2009 International it with a fine of €20,000. event held at Zolder Sporting Code, (Belgium) and counting Appendix J, Art. towards the FIA GT 258.5.2.1] Championship 2009, due to non-compliance of the Responsibility of the cylinder heads and competitor to ensure cylinder block with the car is compliant [2009 homologation form International Sporting Code, Appendix J, Art. 258.2.6] 25/2009 21.10.2009 Referral by _ _ _ Governance of FIA The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. FIA Mobility Region III President “North America”

24/2009 3.12.2009 RACB Pekaracing GT Decision No. 17 taken by Drive-through penalty; The Court declared the appeal inadmissible, on NV the Panel of Stewards on right of appeal [2009 the basis that Article 152 ISC does not permit 25 October 2009, which International Sporting the Court to review the merits of drive-through imposed a drive through Code, Art. 152, fifth penalties. penalty (converted into a paragraph] 30-second time penalty) on competitor Vitaphone Racing Team at the event held at Zolder and counting towards the FIA GT Championship 2009 for breach of Article 104 of the GT Sporting Regulations concerning assistance in the pit lane

20

23/2009 5.11.2009 MSA _ Formula BMW Decision of the Spanish Jurisdiction of the The Court confirmed that the ISC determines [in name of Europe National Court of Appeal National Court of jurisdiction by reference to the location at which BARC, of 21 September 2009, Appeal; Requirement the decision is taken, rather than the nationality Organiserof setting aside the Decision to render a decision of the Stewards or any other criteria. The Court the of the Panel of Stewards within 30 days [2009 further reversed the Decision of the Spanish Formula of 20 August 2009, which International Sporting National Court of Appeal, on the basis that the BMW had excluded competitor Code, Art. 182] Stewards’ Decision of 20 August 2009 was Europe Mücke Motorsport from validly made and that the Stewards had Series] the meeting held in Substitution and competence, and confirmed that the Stewards’ Valencia, imposed a fine competence of Decision was well-founded. of €1,000 for each of its Stewards of the three cars, and requested Meeting; nationality of the matter to be the Stewards [2009 considered by the International Sporting Organising Committee Code, Art. 141]

Replacement of damaged parts by original parts [2009 Formula BMW Regulations, Art. 5.4.1]

Replacement of springs [2009 Formula BMW Regulations, Art. 5.3.3] 22/2009 5.11.2009 DMSB Mücke Formula BMW Decision of 20 August Powers of organizers The Court dismisses the appeal, on the ground Motorsport Europe 2009 by the Organising [2009 International that the Organising Committee had the GmbH Committee of the 2009 Sporting Code, Art. 25] necessary authority to take the Contested Formula BMW Europe Decision. Series to exclude Mücke Power to impose Motorsport GmbH (cars penalties ; N° 15, 16, and 17) from compatibility with the race run in Spa- International Sporting Francorchamps (Belgium) Code [2009 Formula on 28-30 August 2009 BMW Regulations, Art.

21

counting towards the 3.36.3] 2009 Formula BMW Europe Series Power to impose suspension and exclusion penalties [2009 International Sporting Code, Art. 159]

Replacement of damaged parts by original parts [2009 Formula BMW Regulations, Art. 5.4.1]

Replacement of springs [2009 Formula BMW Regulations, Art. 5.3.3] 21/2009 14.10.2009 FFSA Hexis GT Decision of the German Duty to comply with The Court confirmed that it is the competitor’s Racing AMR National Court of Appeal the regulations [2009 responsibility to produce a car that is in of 3 September 2009, International Sporting conformity. In the exceptional circumstances of which confirmed Decision Code, Appendix J, Art. the case, the Court quashed Contested Decision, N°17 of the Panel of 257A-2.5] annulled the exclusion imposed by Decision Stewards excluding car N° N°17 of the Panel of Stewards of 13 August 3 of Hexis Racing AMR Responsibility of the 2009; and substituted it with a financial penalty from Race 2 of the event competitor to ensure in the amount of 10,000 euros upon the run at Oschersleben and car is compliant [2009 Appellant. counting for the 2009 FIA International Sporting GT3 Championship, on Code, Art. 123] account of non- conformity with the car’s homologation form

22

20/2009 6.10. 2009 QMMF Barwa Rally Rally Decision N° 3 of the Panel Modifications to the The Court confirmed the Contested Decision, on Team of Stewards of 30 July crankshaft; “normal the grounds that the practice of crankshaft “blue 2009 to exclude car N° 50 servicing” works to the printing” is not authorized under Article 254 of of Barwa Rally Team from car [2009 International Appendix J to the International Sporting Code. In the Acropolis Rally of Sporting Code, light of the circumstances, the Court lightened Greece 2009, on the Appendix J, Art. 254] the Appellant’s sanction by replacing the penalty grounds that its engine of exclusion from the final classification of the was not in conformity Event, with a drop to the last place. with its homologation form 19/2009 17.09.2009 RACB Prospeed GT Decision No. 10 of the Presence of the The Court confirmed the Contested Decision, on Competitio Panel of Stewards of 23 competitor during the grounds that in the GT2 Championship all n ASBL July 2009 excluding technical controls modifications are prohibited unless a strong competitor Prospeed [General Prescriptions case can be made that the modification is Competition from the for Circuit events, Art. authorized by some exception, which was not event run in Oscherleben 10(F)(b)] the case here. couning for the 2009 FIA Replacement or GT Championship, on the modifications to the grounds that its engine cylinder block; was not in conformity replacement or with its homologation machining of the form sleeves [2009 International Sporting Code, Appendix J, Art. 257-257-2.11.1, -5.2, Art. 251-2.3.3] 18/2009 17.08.2009 FFSA ING F1 Decision N°45 of the Panel Unsafe release of the The Court confirmed the appeal and overturned Renault F1 of Stewards taken on 26 car from the pit stop the Contested Decision. It further issued a Team July 2009 at the Grand [2009 FIA Formula One reprimand and imposed a fine of $50,000 upon Prix of Hungary, Sporting Regulations, the Appellant, in accordance with Article 153 of suspending ING Renault Art. 23.1.i and Art. 3.2] the International Sporting Code. team (driver F. Alonso) Severity of sanction from the next event of the imposed Right of an 2009 FIA Formula One affected party to be World Championship for heard by the ICA [2009

23

releasing car no. 7 from ICA Rules of Procedure, the pit stop without one Art. 21] of the retaining devices for the wheel-nuts being securely in position

17/2009 16.07.2009 RFEA SEAT WTCC Decision of the World Procedure for notifying The Court declared the appeal inadmissible on SPORT Motor Sport Council of 24 an appeal to the ICA ; the grounds that the appeal submitted by the June 2009 concerning the Requirement to Appellant did not meet the formal and 2009 FIA World Touring confirm intention to mandatory technical requirements set out in the Car Championship, appeal by letter [2009 ICA Rules of Procedure for filing an appeal with rejecting a request by ICA Rules of Procedure, the ICA. SEAT Sport to annul Art. 14]; Performance certain decisions by the TC adjustments; technical Bureau which imposed waivers [2009 WTCC upon SEAT a limit on the Regulations, Art. 83]; maximum supercharged Competences the air pressure Permanent Bureau of the Touring Car Commission [2009 WTCC Regulations, Appendix 1, Art. 2] 14/2009 16.07.2009 DMSB BMW F1 Decisions No. 29 to 31 The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. 15/2009 Sauber F1 taken by the Panel of 16/2009 Team Stewards on 4 April 2009 at the 2009 Grand Prix of Malaysia, confirming that the Brawn GP cars, AT&T _ Williams cars and Panasonic Toyota Racing cars comply with the appropriate 2009 Formula One Technical Regulations

24

5/2009 15.04.2009 ÖAMTC Red Bull F1 Decisions No. 16 to 24 Obligation to comply The Court rejected the appeals and confirmed 6/2009 Racing taken by the Panel of with the regulations at the contested decisions. 7/2009 Stewards on 26 March all times during an 2009 at the 2009 Grand event [2009 F1 8/2009 FFSA ING Prix of Australia, Technical Regulations, 9/2009 Renault F1 confirming that the Brawn Art. 2.4] 10/2009 GP cars, AT&T Williams cars and Panasonic Toyota Duty to satisfy the FIA 11/2009 CSAI Scuderia Racing cars comply with technical delegate and 12/2009 Ferrari the appropriate 2009 the stewards that the 13/2009 Marlboro Formula One Technical car is in compliance Regulations with the regulations [2009 F1 Technical Regulations, Art. 2.7]

Possibility to seek clarification from the FIA Technical Dept regarding new designs or systems [2009 F1 Technical Regulations, Art. 2.4]

Bodywork; Bodywork facing the ground [2009 F1 Technical Regulations, Art. 3 and 3.12] 4/2009 21.04.2009 RFEA SEAT Sport WTCC Decision N°12 by the Causing a collision The Court declared the appeal inadmissible in so Panel of Stewards of 22 [2009 WTCC Sporting far as the drive-through penalty is concerned, March 2009 at the event Regulations, Art. 42] this penalty thus remaining unaltered. The Court run in Puebla (Mexico), declared the appeal admissible in so far as the imposing upon driver G. Imposition of penalties drop of ten grip positions is concerned. It further Tarquini a drive-through on a driver involved in annulled the part of the contested decision that penalty and a drop of ten an incident; drop of imposed a drop of ten grid positions suspended

25

grid positions, both grid positions; drive- for three events, on the grounds that Art. 44 of suspended for three through penalty [2009 the WTCC Sporting Regulations allows the events, for having caused WTCC Sporting Stewards to impose only one of the three a collision Regulations, Art. 44] penalties foreseen by that Article and thus does not permit the Stewards to impose a drive- Requirement that the through penalty in addition to a grid position Stewards mention a penalty. competitor’s right to appeal 3/2009 27.02.2009 CAA Nicos Pirelli Star Decision of the Pirelli Star Dead heat; tie breaker The Court invalidated the decision of the PSD Thomas Driver Award Driver (PSD) Working regulation [2008 MERC Working Group and declared Nicos Thomas the Referral by Group declaring Nick Regulations, Art. 40; winner of the 2008 Middle East PSD award, on Pirelli Star Driver Award FIA Rally Georgiou the winner of the grounds that the “Pirelli Star Driver Award President the 2008 Middle East PSD Conditions] Conditions” constituted the applicable regulation for selecting the winner of the award. 2/2009 06.02.2009 MAI Decision of the FIA Failure to timely ICA confirms the decision of the General General Assembly of 7 circulate the agenda Assembly of 7 November 2008 to transfer the November 2008 to and accompanying Sporting Power in India from the MAI to the transfer the Sporting report ahead of a FMSI Power in India from the General Assembly MAI to the FMSCI meeting [FIA Statutes, Art. 10]; Introduction of a frivolous appeal [ICA Rules of Procedure, Article 16] 1/2009 03.02.2009 DMSB Aaron European Rally Decision of the National ICA invalidated the decision of the CSAI Burkart Cup Court of Appeal of CSAI on 5 November 2008

5/2008 22.09.2008 MSA Vodaphone F1 Decision N° 49 by the Imposition of a 25- The Court declared the appeal inadmissible, on Mc Laren Panel of Stewards of 7 second time penalty at the grounds that the penalty imposed by the September 2008 at the the end of the race in Stewards must be considered a drive-through 2008 Belgian Grand Prix lieu of a drive-through penalty, given that the nature of a penalty imposing a 25-second penalty [2008 F1 imposed under the last paragraph of Article 16.3 penalty on McLaren driver Sporting Regulations, of the 2008 F1 Sporting Regulations is identical

26

L. Hamilton for cutting a Art. 16.3, final to the nature of the penalties under points a chicane paragraph] (drive through the pit lane without stopping) and b (ten second stop at the pit) of that Article (the last paragraph of Article 16.3 merely sets out a specific mode of execution of penalties a and b).

As a consequence, the Court considered that the contested penalty fell within the scope of Article 152, para. 5, of the 2008 International Sporting Code, which stipulates that drive-through penalties are not susceptible to appeal. 4/2008 10.09.2008 RACB Prospeed GT Decision N° 24 by the Obligation to The Court upheld the contested decision on the Competitio Panel of Stewards of 4 July homologate (new) grounds that Article 257-10.4 of Appendix J to n 2008 concerning the 2008 suspension elements the 2008 International Sporting Code, which FIA GT Championship, prior to use in a race states that “all new suspension elements must race 3 run in Adria (Italy) [2008 International be homologated”, did not exempt the on 20 June 2008, Sporting Code, suspension arms in question from specific excluding cars n°60 and Appendix J, Art. 257- homologation. °61 of the competitor 10.4 and 257-10.1.2.a] Prospeed Competition The Appellant failed to demonstrate that the due to a failure to specific parts used at the Race were appropriately homologate homologated at the time of their actual use the cars’ suspension arms during the Race, as required by Article 257-10.4 and Article 257-10.1.2.a, which states that suspensions “must conform to the Homologation form”. The fact that they may have been subsequently homologated is not a defense to the obligation to race at all times using the required homologated parts.

The Court also held that it is the responsibility of the competitor to observe the rules of the competition that it has entered.

27

3/2008 29.07.2008 MAI _ _ Decision of the WMSC of Recognition by the FIA The Court invalidated the contested decision, on 25 June 2008 transferring of one organization per the grounds that the Appellant’s rights of the Sporting Power in country to hold the defense were breached by the FIA’s failure to India from MAI to FMSCI Sporting Power [2008 give the MAI sufficient notice of the vote leading FIA Statutes, Art. 4] to the contested decision and to allow it an opportunity to present its arguments. The Court Procedure in case of moreover found that the mandate given by the expulsion of a Member General Assembly to the WMSC in this matter of the FIA [2008 FIA could not be regarded as a mandate for the Statutes, Art. 27(d)] WMSC to decide on the removal of the Sporting Power in India from MAI. Authority of the WMSC to settle a question forwarded by the General Assembly [2008 FIA Statutes, Art. 16]

Authority of the General Assembly to admit or expel Members to or from the FIA [2008 FIA Statutes, Art. 9(10)] 2/2008 12.06.2008 RACB Prospeed GT Decision N° 28 by the Provisions governing The Court invalidated the contested decision on Competitio Panel of the Stewards of the refueling procedure the grounds that it was based on facts the n 18 May 2008 at the event and the number of material accuracy of which was not proved. The run at Monza (Italy) on 18 persons allowed to be Court further ordered to reinstate car n°61 in its May 2008, counting present in the pit proper place in the classification. towards the 2008 FIA GT during the servicing of Championship, excluding a car [2008 FIA GT car n°61 from the race Championship Regulations, Art. 104 and 109]

28

1/2008 31.01.2008 ACI CSAI GPC Sport GT Decision of the Spanish Overtaking in a yellow The Court declared the appeal ill-founded on the National Court of Appeal flag zone grounds that the appellant did not supply any of 28 November 2007 proof regarding the different grounds of concerning the event run complaint put forward. on 27-28 October 2007 in Jerez (Spain), counting towards the 2007 Spanish GT Championship 13/2007 13.12.2007 Referral by _ F1 _ Prejudicial statements The Court imposed a fine of € 20,000 on the FIA by the team PK Racing team PK Racing. The Court further ordered a President against the FIA and the license suspension on the drivers A. Kumpen and ICA [2007 International B. Longin, that sanction being suspended for one Sporting Code, Art. 58, year and becoming become effective if they 151(c) and 153] should commit a similar offence calling into question the integrity of the FIA or the independence of the ICA or its members within a period of two years. 12/2007 13.12.2007 ACCR Buggyra Truck Racing Decision of the Spanish Responsibility for The Court invalidated the contested decision Int’l Racing National Court of Appeal collision of two and confirmed the ten-second penalty decided System of 22 October 2007 competitors [2007 FIA by the Panel of Stewards, in pursuance not of concerning the event run European Truck Racing Article 12 of the European Truck Racing at Jarama (Spain) on 7 Championship Championship regulations, but of Articles 9.6 October 2007 and Regulations, Art. 9.6 and 9.7.1 of the same Championship regulations counting towards the and 12] and Articles 141 and 153 of the International 2007 FIA European Truck Sporting Code. Racing Championship, Power of the Stewards overturning a decision by to impose a ten-second the Panel of Stewards to time penalty [2007 FIA impose a ten-second time European Truck Racing penalty Championship Regulations, Art. 9.7.1; 2007 International Sporting Code, Art. 141 and 153]

29

11/2007 21.11.2007 ACI CSAI Scuderia Rally Decision N°2 of the Panel Duty of scrutineers to The Court confirmed the contested decision on Island of the Stewards of 7 check the mechanical the grounds that the Stewards was regular and Motorsport October 2007 at the 32nd components of the did not violate the rights of defense of the ELPA Rally run in Greece cars; communication by Appellant. on 5-7 October 2007 and the Stewards to the counting towards the contestant regarding 2007 FIA European Rally same [2007 Championship International Sporting Code, Art. 145] 10/2007 15.11.2007 MSA Vodaphone F1 Decision N° 41 of the Meaning of “parties The Court declared the appeal inadmissible, on McLaren Panel of Stewards of 21 concerned” by a account of the lack of direct interest of the Mercedes October 2007 at the 2007 Stewards’ decision Appellant in the contested decision. The Court Grand Prix of Brazil, not to [2007 ICA Rules of held that the only manner for the Appellant to impose a penalty given Procedure, Art. 1] obtain a modification of the race classification, the existing doubts as to would have been to lodge a protest against the the existence of an Right of a third party to classification at the latest thirty minutes after infringement of the appeal the the posting of that classification. permitted fuel classification or non- temperature, and compliance of a vehicle counting towards the [2007 International 2007 FIA Formula One Sporting Code, Art. World Championship 174d]

Permitted fuel temperature [2007 FIA F1 Technical Regulations, Art. 6.5.4] 9/2007 08.11.2007 ACI CSAI Prema Formula Decision of the Belgian Time-limits for The Court declared the appeal inadmissible, on Power Renault 2000 National Court of Appeal notifying an appeal to the grounds that the Appellant did not Team Eurocup of 16 May 2007 the ICA [2007 ICA formulate his appeal within seven days of the concerning the “Formula Rules of Procedure, notification of the decision of the Belgian Renault 2000 – Eurocup” Article 17] National Court of Appeal, as required by Article event run on 21-22 April 17 of the ICA Rules of Procedure. 2007 at Zolder (B)

30

8/2007 07.11.2007 RFEA RSV GT Decision of the French Procedure for notifying The Court declared the appeal inadmissible, on Motorsport National Court of Appeal an appeal to the ICA the grounds that the Appellant failed to confirm of 28 August 2007, [2007 ICA Rules of his intention to appeal by written letter to the reducing the penalty Procedure, Art. 14] ICA, as required by Article 14 of the ICA Rules of imposed by the Panel of Procedure. Stewards on 15 July 2007 on the competitor Autorlando Sport at the event run at Magny-Cours (F), counting for the 2007 International Open GT Championship, from a one-lap penalty to a 40- second time penalty 7/2007 12.10.2007 ACI CSAI Scuderia F1 Decision N° 41 of the Imposition of a 25- The Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed Toro Rosso Panel of the Stewards of second time penalty the contested decision, on the grounds that the 30 September 2007 at the after the race [2007 F1 absence of a green flag could not give the Japanese Grand Prix, Sporting Regulations, Appellant reason to think that he was no longer imposing a 25-second Art. 16.3, final bound by the obligations of the yellow flag and penalty on Toro Rosso paragraph] could therefore overtake. driver V. Liuzzi for ignoring a yellow flag and counting Purpose of cockpit towards the 2007 FIA lights and precedence Formula One World of flag signals ; Yellow Championship flag [2007 FIA F1 Technical Regulations, Art. 8.4] 6/2007 12.10.2007 MSA Vodaphone F1 Decision of the World The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. McLaren Motor Sport Council of 26 Mercedes July 2007 finding Vodafone McLaren Mercedes to be in _ possession of confidential Ferrari information in breach of the International Sporting

31

Code

5/2007 12.10.2007 MSA Vodaphone F1 Decision N°26 of the Panel The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. McLaren of the Stewards of 4 Mercedes August 2007 at the 2007 Hungarian Grand Prix run, depriving the Appellant of any points scored during _ the next race due to non- respect of the timing during the pit stop, and counting towards the 2007 FIA Formula One World Championship 4/2007 24.07.2007 RACB PK Racing GT Decision N° 7 of the Panel Sovereign right of the The Court partially invalidated the contested of Stewards of 8 July ICA to rule on the decision in so far as the latter refused to accept 2007, at the event run at admissibility of an the intention to appeal formulated by the Oschersleben and appeal before it Appellant, on the grounds that the Stewards of counting towards the the Meeting do not have the ability or the right 2007 FIA GT Time-limit for payment to substitute for the ICA, which is in this respect Championship imposing a of the appeal fee [2007 the only competent judge to give a ruling on the penalty on PK Racing for ICA Rules of Procedure, admissibility of an appeal. The Court, however, exceeding the maximum Art. 15] confirmed the contested decision in so far as it fuel capacity allowed imposed a penalty on the Appellant for

onboard the vehicle exceeding the maximum fuel capacity allowed Fuel capacity; under Article 258.6.5.1 of Appendix J to the Measurement of fuel International Sporting Code, on the grounds that carried on board [2007 the Applicant did not comply with the International Sporting restrictions set out in this Article. Code, Appendix J, Art. 258-6.5.1]

32

3/2007 23.07.2007 ACI CSAI Seat Sport WTCC Decision N° 8 of the Panel Ignoring a yellow flag The Court partially confirmed the contested Italia of Stewards of on 7 July [2007 International decision in so far as it imposed a penalty on the 2007, at the event run at Sporting Code, Appellant for failure to respect the yellow flag. Porto (P) and counting Appendix H, Art. The Court, however, invalidated the contested towards the 2007 FIA 4.1.2.b] decision in so far as it held the Appellant World Touring Car responsible for the incident that occurred during Championship, imposing a Penalty for abusive the race, on the grounds that the responsibility fine of €1,500 and a drop behavior [2007 was not solely attributable to the Appellant. The of 10 grid positions in the International Sporting Court moreover invalidated the €3,000 fine for first race of the next event Code, Art. 151.c] abusive behavior imposed by the contested for ignoring a yellow flag, decision on the Appellant on the grounds that

ordering the cancellation this penalty appeared insufficient, and increased of all qualifying times and Responsibility for an the fine to €6,000. a drop of 10 grid positions incident [2007 FIA in the second race of the WTCC Regulations, Art. next event, and imposing 42] a fine of €3,000 for use of aggressive language and behavior towards another competitor 2/2007 30.01.2007 UAMK CR _ _ Alleged de facto Holding of the Sporting The Court confirmed that it had jurisdiction in delegation by The Power [2007 FIA the matter. It rejected the claims of the Autoclub of the Czech Statutes, Art. 4] Appellant on the grounds that the latter did not Republic (ACCR) of its adduce proof of a transfer of Sporting Power Sporting Power to the Delegation of the from ACCR to ABA. commercial company ABA Sporting Power [2007 without consent of the FIA FIA Statutes, Art. 5]

1/2007 11.01.2007 Referral by CRG S.p.A. CIK-FIA Decision of the Belgian Standing start [2007 The Court quashed the contested decision on FIA National Court of Appeal International Sporting the grounds that an infringement was President of 24 October 2006, Code, Art. 92] committed by the Appellant regardless of quashing Decision N° 21 whether or not it was his intention to commit of the Panel of Stewards Penalty for false start that infringement. The Court also declared null of 3 September 2006, [2007 International and void Decision N° 21 of the Panel of Stewards imposing a ten-second on the grounds that the Race Director was not

33

penalty on competitor Sporting Code, Art. 94] heard, in breach of Art. 174-e of the CRG S.p.A., at the event at International Sporting Code. The Court further Mariembourg (BE) and Hearing of the Race exercised its right to hear a case before a lower counting towards the Director in the event of court and imposed a ten-second penalty on the 2006 CIK-FIA Karting a protest [2007 Appellant pursuant to Article 2.24 of the CIK-FIA Super ICC World Cup International Sporting General Prescriptions, on the grounds that the Code, Art. 174-e] driver anticipated the start in breach of Article 92 and 94 of the International Sporting Code and

Article 2.20-K of the CIK-FIA General Starting procedure and Prescriptions. penalties for jumping the start [2007 CIK-FIA General Prescriptions, Art. 2.20-K and 2.24] 7/2006 4.12.2006 ACI CSAI Vortex Srl CIK-FIA Decision N° 9 of the Panel Right of review; failure The Court confirmed the contested decision, on of Stewards of 17 to sufficiently describe the grounds that (i) the rights of defense were November 2006 grievances in the respected as the competitor was aware of the concerning the event run summons; failure by charges against it; (ii) the Stewards in making at Angerville on 28 the Stewards to their decision were entitled to rely on video September-1 October sufficiently motivate evidence provided to them after the event 2006 and excluding driver their decision [2006 concerned; and (iii) examination of the video Francesco Antonucci International Sporting evidence revealed the presence of a second (competitor Vortex srl) Code, Art. 179bis] mechanic and the performance of works other from the 2006 CIK-FIA than changing the tires or checking tire pressure, World Karting Starting procedure; Use both of which are prohibited by the CIK-FIA Championship of video evidence by regulations. the Stewards in reaching a decision [2006 CIK-FIA Sporting Regulations, Art. 51]

Starting procedure; Authorized works on a kart [2006 CIK-FIA Regulations, Art. 2.19

34

H]

Access to the Paddock and to the «Start» Servicing Park; Number of mechanics allowed [2006 CIK-FIA Specific Prescriptions, Art. 10 and 11] 6/2006 28.11.2006 ACI Draco World Series by Decision of the Belgian Right of a third party to The Court declared admissible the appeal by CSAI Multiracing Renault National Court of Appeal appeal a Stewards’ Draco Multiracing USA. It also declared of 25 July 2006, decision admissible the opposition appeals lodged by the Prema concerning the event run third parties Prema Powerteam and R.C. Powerteam at Zolder (Belgium) on 30 Rights of defense and Motorsport on the grounds that the Belgian NCA (third April 2006 counting adversarial principle had failed to respect the adversarial principle towards the World Series and had not given these parties an opportunity party) by Renault 2006, ruling to assert their rights of defense. Cutting a chicane jointly on two separate R.C. appeals lodged by resp. The Court invalidated the contested decision on Motorsport Draco Multiracing USA (third the grounds that the Belgian NCA (i) was wrong and Eurointernational, party) to combine two appeals which concerned and annulling the results different races and different decisions with of Race No. 1 separate causes; (ii) ruled ultra petita as it failed to answer the appeal formulated by Draco and as the cancellation of the event was not requested by neither the parties nor by the Stewards or Clerk of the Course; and (iii) failed to respect the adversarial principle by ruling on Race No. 1.

The Court further confirmed the Stewards’ decision concerning Draco on the grounds that Draco failed to provide evidence that the competitor Salignon cut the chicanes during the qualifications and rejected Draco’s request to

35

impose a time penalty of at least 10 seconds. The Court also confirmed the results of Race No. 1.

5/2006 27.11.2006 SBF Per-Gunnar Junior WRC Decision N° 6 of the Panel Works authorized on The Court declared the appeal admissible and Andersson of Stewards of 15 October the car during the race confirmed the contested decision on the basis 2006, excluding Car No. 35 [WRC Regulations] that the appellant adduced insufficient proof (driver Per-Gunnar that the Scrutineer’s report, on which the Andersson) from the Rally Persons authorized to contested decision was based, was inexact. of Turkey, counting perform works on the towards the 2006 FIA car during the race Junior World Rally [WRC Regulations] Championship 4/2006 9.11.2006 DMSB Vitaphone GT Decision N°30 of the Panel The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. Racing of Stewards of 28 May Team 2006, concerning the event run at Brno and counting towards the _ 2006 FIA GT Championship, imposing a penalty on car N° 2 (crew Jamie Davies/ Thomas Biagi) 3/2006 9.11.2006 Referral by CIK-FIA Decision of the French Power of the Stewards The Court quashed the contested decisions and FIA National Court of Appeal to cancel the results of confirmed Decision N° 37 of the Panel of of 24 July 2006 and its a race [2006 Stewards, on the grounds that the Stewards revised decision of 1 International Sporting have the power to annul the results of a race September 2006, Code, Art. 141] when the circumstances of the race make it concerning the event run impossible to establish a fair classification, so as as Varennes sur Alliers on Difference between an to avoid unfair treatment of the competitors. 25 June 2006, counting individual penalty and towards the 2006 CIK-FIA an overall sanction European Championship

36

(Formula A)

2/2006 22.08.2006 Referral by Mild Seven F1 Decision N°8 of the Panel Obligation to comply The Court quashed the contested decision and FIA Renault F1 of Stewards of 28 July with the regulations at held that the use of a device known as Tuned 2006 at the 2006 Grand all times during an Mass Dampers (TMD) constitutes an Prix of Germany event [2006 F1 infringement of Article 3.15 of the F1 Technical Technical Regulations, Regulations given that the device impacts the Art. 2.4] aerodynamic efficiency of the car.

Possibility to seek clarification from the FIA Technical Dept regarding new designs or systems [2006 F1 Technical Regulations, Art. 2.4]

Bodywork; sprung parts [2006 F1 Technical Regulations, Art. 1.4]

Aerodynamic influence [2006 F1 Technical Regulations, Art. 3.15]

Sprung suspension [2006 F1 Technical Regulations, Art. 1.14] 1/2006 28.02.2006 NAMK Decision of the FIA Failure of a party to The Court confirmed the contested decision on Extraordinary General attend a ICA hearing the grounds that the proposal submitted by the Assembly of 31 March World Council for Mobility and the Automobile 2005 to strike the NAMK Financial obligations of on 30 March 2005 and the consequent striking

37

off the rolls FIA Members [FIA of NAMK off the rolls pronounced by the FIA Statutes, Art. 25] Extraordinary General Assembly on 31 March 2005 were right and proper. Striking off the rolls [FIA Statutes, Art. 25] 22/2005 8.12.2005 FFSA Larbre GT Decision N°9 of the Panel Requirement for the The Court quashed the contested decision on Competitio of Stewards of 25 car to contain at least the basis that doubts remain as to the precise n November 2005, three liters of petrol for manner in which to remove the required fuel excluding team the taking of fuel from the tank and the possibility of removing Lamy/Gardel (competitor samples [2005 GT additional fuel from the tank in question. Larbre Competition) from Sporting Regulations, the event run in Bahrain Article 60d] and countring in the FIA GT Chmapionship, for failing to contain the required 3 liters of petrol at the end of the race 21/2005 8.12.2005 MSA Chevrolet WTCC Decision of the Panel of The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. Stewards of 20 November 2005 concerning the event run in Macao and counting towards the FIA _ WTCC

38

20/2005 7.11.2005 Referral by Berthon CIK-FIA Decision of the Italian Minimum weight of the The Court confirmed the contested decision the FIA National Court of Appeal kart [FIA-CIK Technical insofar as the nullity of Decision N°17 is of 21 September 2005 Regulations, Articles concerned on the basis that the competitor’s annulling, for obstruction 1.3, 4.2 and 10] rights of defense were obstructed. However, as of rights of defense, to the substance, the Court quashed the Decision N° 17 of the Failure to meet the contested decision for failing to rule on the Panel of Stewards of 21 required weight of the competitor’s violation of the technical August 2005 excluding car due to force regulations with regard to the weight of the kart. driver Nathanael Berthon majeure [2005 General Re-ruling on the matter, the Court confirmed from the event run at La Prescriptions, Article that driver Nathanael Berthon (competitor Jean- Conca and counting 12(A)(c)] Yves Berthon) must be excluded from the pre- towards the CIK-FIA final race run at La Conca on the grounds that

European Intercontinental the applicable technical regulations were not A Championship Rights of defence respected. 19/2005 13.09.2005 ACI Alfa Romeo WTCC Decision N°4 of the Panel Protest against The Court declared the appeal inadmissible, on CSAI Racing of Stewards of 30 July classification of the the basis that the appeal did not originate from Team 2005 imposing a 3-second race [2005 the competitor or driver concerned by the penalty on driver Stefano International Sporting contested decision. The Court noted that if the d’Aste (competitor Code, Art. 174(d)] appellant intended to contested the penalty Proteam Motorsport) for imposed, it should have filed a protest against having left the circuit to the classification rather than against avoid an accident, thereby yielding an advantage

39

18/2005 13.09.2005 ACI Alfa Romeo WTCC Decision N° 8 of the Panel The Court confirmed the contested decision on CSAI Racing of Stewards of 30 July the basis that the relevant facts constituted a Team 2005 concerning the racing incident. racing incident involving the drivers Antonio Garcia (BMW, Team Italy-Spain), Dirk Müller (BMW, Team Deutschland) and Gabriele Tarquini (Alfa Romeo Racing Team) 17/2005 13.09.2005 ACI Alfa Romeo WTCC Decision N° 7 of the Panel The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. CSAI Racing of Stewards of 30 July Team 2005 to exclude driver Augusti Farfus (competitor Alfa Romeo racing Team) from the event run at Spa (Belgium) _ on 26-31 July 2005 and counting towards the FIA WTCC, following a racing incident

16/2005 13.09.2005 ASS Sauber F1 Decision of the World The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. Petronas Motor Sport Council of 29 June 2005 finding the seven Michelin teams guilty of failing to ensure _ that they were in possession of suitable tyres for the 2005 US Grand Prix

40

15/2005 13.09.2005 FFSA Renault F1 F1 Decision of the World The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. Team Motor Sport Council of 29 June 2005 finding the seven Michelin teams guilty of failing to ensure _ that they were in possession of suitable tyres for the 2005 US Grand Prix 14/2005 13.09.2005 DMSB Panasonic F1 Decision of the World The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. Toyota Motor Sport Council of 29 Racing June 2005 finding the seven Michelin teams guilty of failing to ensure _ that they were in possession of suitable tyres for the 2005 US Grand Prix 13/2005 13.09.2005 MSA British F1 Decision of the World The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. American Motor Sport Council of 29 Racing June 2005 finding the (BAR) GP seven Michelin teams Ltd guilty of failing to ensure _ that they were in possession of suitable tyres for the 2005 US Grand Prix

41

12/2005 13.09.2005 MSA McLaren F1 Decision of the World The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. Racing Ltd Motor Sport Council of 29 June 2005 finding the seven Michelin teams guilty of failing to ensure _ that they were in possession of suitable tyres for the 2005 US Grand Prix 11/2005 13.09.2005 MSA Red Bull F1 Decision of the World The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. Racing Motor Sport Council of 29 June 2005 finding the seven Michelin teams guilty of failing to ensure _ that they were in possession of suitable tyres for the 2005 US Grand Prix 10/2005 13.09.2005 MSA Williams GP F1 Decision of the World The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. Engineering Motor Sport Council of 29 Ltd June 2005 finding the seven Michelin teams guilty of failing to ensure _ that they were in possession of suitable tyres for the 2005 US Grand Prix

42

9/2005 19.07.2005 MSA Aston Mobil 1 Twelve Decision of IMSA's Appeal The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. Martin Hours Review Board of 21 April Racing 2005, concerning the 53rd Annual Mobil 1 Twelve Hours of Sebring, rejecting a request by competitor _ AMR to exclude competitor Maserati from the race based on the alleged non-conformity of the latter’s car 8/2005 19.07.2005 ACI Alfa Romeo WTCC Decision of the Panel of Filing of an appeal to The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. CSAI Racing Stewards of 15 May 2005 the ICA; requirement to Team confirm intention to The Court held that, in any event, in the absence appeal by letter [2005 of an appeal brought before the Court, the International Sporting contested decision had acquired the authority of Code, Art. 186] res judicata.

Requirement to submit an appeal to the ICA through the competitor’s ASN [2005 International Sporting Code, Art. 185.2] 7/2005 4.05.2005 Referral by Lucky Strike F1 Decision N° 49 of the Weight of the car The Court invalidated the contested decision the FIA BAR Honda Panel of Stewards of 24 [2005 F1 Technical and declared that the competitor failed to April 2005 at the San Regulations, Art. 1.9 comply with the applicable regulations by using Marino Grand Prix (Imola) and 1.10, Art. 4.1] an underweight car. The Court excluded refusing to take action competitor Lucky Strike BAR Honda from the against driver Jenson Weighing of the car event in question and from the next two events. Button for using an after the race The Court further suspended the competitor for underweight car [2005 F1 Sporting a period of six month after the mentioned two Regulations, Art. 77-a-4 events, with this penalty suspended for a period and 77-b] of one year.

43

6/2005 3.05.2005 DMSB Panasonic F1 Decision N° 45 of the The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. Toyota Panel of Stewards of 24 Racing April 2005 at the San Marino Grand Prix (Imola), imposing a 25-second _ time penalty on driver Ralf Schumacher

5/2005 3.05.2005 ACI Minardi F1 F1 Decision N° 8 of the Panel The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. CSAI Team of Stewards of 4 March 2005 at the Australian Grand Prix, finding Minardi’s cars not to be in _ conformity with the Technical and Sporting Regulations

4/2005 24.02.2005 ACI Victory Eurocup Decision N° 4 of the Panel The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. CSAI Engineering Formula of Stewards of 6 October Renault V6 2004 disqualifying car N° 11 for not being in conformity with the _ Technical Regulations

44

3/2005 24.02.2005 ACS Loris Kessel GT Decision of the Italian The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. Racing National Court of Appeal of 18 June 2003 annulling the results of the National GT Championship event run at Mugello on 13 April _ 2003, following an incident involving the alleged opening of a fire extinguisher in a competitors’ car by a Steward 2/2005 24.02.2005 CAMS Team V8 Supercar Decision of 19 November The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. Dynamic 2004 by a body described PTY LTD as the “V8 Supercar National Court of Appeal” (V8 SNCA) _

1/2005 24.02.2005 ÖAMTC Robert Internat’l 31st Two decisions of the The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. Lechner ADAC Zurich 24 German National Court of Hours Appeal of 1 July 2003 concerning the event entitled “International 31st _ ADAC Zurich 24 Hours” run on the Nürnburgring circuit on 31 May and 1 June 2003

45

8/2004 03.11.2004 ACL Jama Formula 1600 Decision of the Spanish Irregularity in the The Court invalidated the contested decision on Investment (International National Court of Appeal scrutineering the grounds that the brake pads used by the s Series) of 15 July 2004, procedure; Impartiality competitor were in conformity with the Luxembour confirming Decision N° 3 in the organization of a applicable technical regulations, and invalidated g of the Panel of Stewards race [2004 Decision N°3 of the Panel of Stewards, based of 20 June 2004 at the International Sporting inter alia on the irregularities that appear to event run in Valencia and Code, Art. 136] have taken place during the scrutineering counting towards the procedure. Spanish Formula Junior Publication of a 1600 Championship, provisional which had excluded car n° classification; 18 (competitor Jama modification of the Investments) on the classification [2004 grounds that its braking International Sporting system was not in Code, Art. 177; F1600 conformity with the Sporting Regulations, regulations Art. 40.5]

Braking system; Types of brake pads authorized [F1600 Technical Regulations; Art 11.2.1] 7/2004 03.11.2004 MSA Jenzer Formula Decision of the British The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. Motorsport Renault V6 National Court of Appeal GmbH of 10 August 2004, declaring inadmissible an appeal against two sanctions pronounced by _ the Stewards on 26 June 2004 at the event run at Donington and counting towards the Formula Renault V6 Championship (for causing an avoidable

46

collision and for ignoring a yellow flag, respectively), on the grounds that the appeal was not confirmed before the deadline

6/2004 21.09.2004 ACI GPC Motor GT Decision N° 13 of the The Court confirmed the contested decision, on Air boxes; Restrictors CSAI Srl Panel of Stewards of 5 the grounds that the car in question was not in blocking the air feeding September 2004 at the conformity with the applicable regulations. the engine [2004 event run at Imola and International Sporting counting towards the Code, Appendix J, Art. 2004 GT Championship, 257-5.3.2] excluding car n°62

(competitor GPC Sport) from the event because its Exclusion [2004 air box was not in International Sporting compliance Code, Art. 141 and 158] 5/2004 09.08.2004 MSA BAR F1 Decision N° 16 of the Brake systems; The Court confirmed the contested decision, on Panel of Stewards of 24 Powered devices the grounds that the device in question is not in July 2004 at the event run affecting the brake conformity with the F1 Technical Regulations. at Hockenheim and system; Changes to the counting towards the brake system whilst the 2004 Formula One car is moving [2004 F1 Championship, finding the Technical Regulations, T car of competitor Bar Art. 11(1)(3) and (4)] Honda not to be in compliance with the Obligation to comply Technical Regulations and with the regulations at prohibiting the use of an all times during an electro hydraulic event [2004 F1 software-controlled Technical Regulations, device connecting the Art 2.4] front wheels via drive

shafts and allowing controlled torque transfer Possibility to seek clarification from the

47

from a faster wheel to a FIA Technical Dept slower wheel even under regarding new designs braking or systems [2004 F1 Technical Regulations, Art 2.4]

Inspection of electrical system by FIA Technical Department prior to start of season [2004 F1 Technical Regulations, Art 8.1.1]

4/2004 20.07.2004 ACM JMB Racing GT Decision N° 16 of the Parc fermé [2004 The Court annulled the contested decision, and Panel of Stewards of 27 International Sporting replaced the time penalty imposed by the June 2004 at the event Code, General Stewards with a more lenient penalty consisting run at Donington and Prescriptions, Art. of a USD 15,000 fine, for making an unjustified counting towards the 21(c); 2004 GT Sporting stop before proceeding to the parc fermé. 2004 GT Championship, Regulations, Art. 158] imposing a 5 min. penalty on driver Karl Wendlinger (competitor JMB Racing) for infringing the rule that after the end of the race cars must proceed directly to the parc fermé without stopping 3/2004 20.07.2004 ACI Coloni F3000 Decision N° 20 of the The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. CSAI Motorsport Panel of Stewards of 3 July 2004 at the event run at - Magny-Cours and counting towards the 2004 F3000

48

Championship, suspending the license of driver Can Artam (competitor Coloni Motorsport) for the next F3000 Championship for having ignored a yellow flag 2/2004 12.05.2004 ACI BMS GT Decision N° 3 of the Panel Imposition of penalties The Court confirmed the contested decision, on CSAI Scuderia of Stewards of 2 May on a driver involved in the grounds that the appellant caused an Italia Spa 2004 at the event run at an incident; 50-second avoidable collision which was ascribable to his Magny-Cours and time penalty conduct alone. counting towards the 2004 GT Championship, imposing a 50-second time penalty on driver Gabriele Gardel (competitor Ferrari) following a collision between the latter and driver Luca Cappellari (competitor Ferrari) 1/2004 12.02.2004 KNAF Carly WTCC Decision of the Italian Right of a third party to The Court invalidated the contested decision Motors B.V. National Court of Appeal appeal a Stewards’ and declared the appeal admissible on the of 11 December 2003 decision; National grounds that the appellant had a manifest confirming Decision N° 13 appeal procedure interest in filing the appeal. The Court, however, of the Panel of Stewards [2004 International noted that it is not competent to examine the of 19 October 2003, which Sporting Code, Art. regular application of the procedure by which an had dismissed a protest by 182] ASN granted a license to a competitor. Carly Motors against the classification of the race Competence to Given that both drivers carried out manoeuvres run in Monza and examine the validity of likely to hinder the other drivers, and given the counting for the 2003 a license; Jurisdiction of impossibility to apply after the race the penalties European Touring Cars ASNs [2004 set out at Article 37, the Court imposed a fine of Championship, following a International Sporting USD 25,000 on both competitors.

49

collision between drivers Code, Art. 47] Duncan Huisman (competitor Carly Motors) Obstructive and Garbiele Tarquini manoeuvres [2004 (competitor Autodelta) International Sporting Code, Appendix L, Chapt. IV, Art. 2(c) and (d)]

Imposition of penalties on a driver involved in an incident [2004 International Sporting Code, Art. 152 and 153] 10/2003 03.12.2003 DMSB Aqua Nova International Decision of the Italian Relevant regulations; The Court confirmed the contested decision, on Racing Series National Court of Appeal Precedence of FIA the grounds that the flywheel used by the Team of 21 October 2003 regulations over competitor weighed much less than those concerning the 2003 Porsche’s internal checked in the factory during the official Porsche Michelin manual [2003 expertise, and was not in conformity with the Supercup Event run at International Sporting original part. Monza on 12-14 Code, Art. 24-b] September 2003, replacing the Decision of Authorized the Stewards to impose a modifications to the fine of € 2,000 on engine [Technical competitor Aqua Nova Regulations, Art. 1] Racing Team (driver Wolf Henzler) for non- conformity of the weight of the engine flywheel, by the exclusion of car n° 3 of driver Wolf Henzler

50

9/2003 03.12.2003 DMSB Aqua Nova International Decision of the American Obstructive The Court quashed the contested decision and Racing Series National Court of Appeal manoeuvres; braking confirmed the Decision of the Panel of Stewards Team of 21 October 2003 [2003 International of 27 September 2003, excluding car n°5 of concerning the 2003 Sporting Code, competitor Infineon Farnbacher (driver Frank Porsche Michelin Appendix L, Chapt. IV, Stippler) from the event on the grounds that the Supercup Event run at Art. 2(c)] collision was attributable to driver Frank Indianapolis on 27-28 Stippler, who used his brakes in an abusive September 2003, Imposition of penalties manner. replacing the Decision of on a driver involved in the Stewards to exclude an incident car n°5 (competitor

Infineon Farnbacher; driver Frank Stippler) from Xxx [2003 International the race for having caused Sporting Code, Art. a collision with driver 189] Wolf Henzler (competitor Aqua Nova Racing Team) by a simple reprimand on Frank Stippler with a notation on the Driving Code 8/2003 21.10.2003 MSA Lister GT Decision N°9 of the Panel Obstructive The Court confirmed the contested decision on Racing of Stewards of 21 manoeuvres; the grounds that the collision was attributable to September 2003 at the overtaking [2003 driver Jamie Campbell-Walter who had even run at Oscherleben International Sporting obstructed the driving line of driver Philippe and counting for the 2003 Code, Appendix L, Alliot. GT Championship, Chapt. IV, Art. 2(c)] excluding car n°14 (driver Jamie Campbell-Walter) Imposition of penalties for having caused a on a driver involved in collision with car no. 4 an incident [2003 GT (driver Philippe Alliot) Sporting Regulations] 7/2003 07.10.2003 FPAK Mitsubishi Cross Country Decision of the Panel of Obligation to follow the The Court invalidated the contested decision Motors Rally Stewards of 16 August itinerary indicated in and excluded car no. 201 of competitor Coli & 2003 at the Rallye the Road Book; passage Cie (crew Schlesser / Lurquin) for failing to

51

d’Orient and counting of check points respect the itinerary indicated in the Road Book towards the 2003 World [Rallye d’Orient from the event in question. Cup for Cross-Country Supplementary Rallies, rejecting the Regulations, Art. 10 P; protest by competitor FIA Standard Mitsubishi Motors against Regulations for Off competitor Coli & Cie for Road Rallies, Art 10.1] allegedly failing to follow the itinerary on the road book 6/2003 19.08.2003 MSA Williams GP F1 Decision N°41 of the Panel Penalties; Permission The Court invalidated the contested decision Engineering of Stewards of 3 August to inflict penalties in and replaced the drop of ten grid positions by a Ltd 2003 at the German addition to or instead more appropriate penalty, namely a fine of USD Grand Prix, imposing a of penalties available 50,000. The Court further referred the case drop of ten grid positions under the International back to the Stewards in order to examine the on Ralf Schumacher at the Sporting Code [2003 F1 responsibility incurred by driver Rubens starting grid of the next Sporting Regulations, Barichello and Kimmi Raikkönen in the same Grand Prix for having Art. 59] incident. caused a collision 5/2003 15.07.2003 ACI BMS GT Decision N°33 of the Panel Authorized The Court invalidated the contested decision, on CSAI Scuderia of Stewards of 29 June modifications to the the grounds that the alterations made by the Italia 2003 at the event run in engine; lubrication of appellant did not infringe the relevant Rome and counting the engine [2003 regulations. towards the 2003 GT International Sporting Championship, excluding Code, Appendix J, GT car n°23 (competitor BMS Technical Regulations, Scuderia Italia) from the Art. 258-5.2.1] event Sump [2003 International Sporting Code, Appendix J, Art. 251-2.3.7]

52

4/2003 15.07.2003 KNAF Zwaans GT Decision N°32 of the Panel Ventilation system; The Court confirmed the contested decision, on Racing of Stewards of 29 June cockpit ventilation; the grounds that the ventilation system of the 2003 at the event run in equipment permitted appellant’s car was not in compliance with the Donington Park counting in the cockpit; rear relevant rules. towards the 2003 GT window [2003 Champioship, excluding International Sporting car no. 18 (driver Rob van Code, Appendix J, GT der Zwaan) from the Technical Regulations, event for non-conformity Art. 258-3.4, -13.2.1, of its ventilation system and -15.3]

Modifications to be re- presented for scrutineering approval [2003 GT Sporting Regulations, Art. 59]

Inspection procedure [International Sporting Code, Art. 145] 3/2003 21.05.2003 ACI BMS GT Decision N° 22 of the Air boxes; Restrictors The Court confirmed the contested decision, on CSAI Scuderia Panel of Stewards of 11 blocking the air feeding the grounds that the air box of the appellant’s Italia May 2003 at the event run the engine [2003 car was not in compliance with the relevant in Enna Pergusa, counting International Sporting rules when scrutineered after the event. towards the 2003 GT Code, Appendix J, GT1 Championship, excluding Technical Regulations, the car of team Art. 258-5.3.2] Cappellari/Gollin (competitor BMS Scuderia Duty to satisfy the Italia) from the event Scrutineers and the because its air box was stewards that the car is not in compliance in compliance with the regulations [2003 International Sporting Code, Appendix J, GT1

53

Technical Regulations, Art. 258-2.6]

Obligation to comply with the regulations at all times during an event [2003 GT1 Sporting Regulations, Art. 5]

End of an event [2003 International Sporting Code, Art. 16(b)] 2/2003 07.05.2003 MSA Team GT Decision N° 28 of the Fuel capacity; The Court confirmed the contested decision, on Maranello Panel of Stewards of 27 Measurement of fuel the grounds that the appellant’s car effectively April 2003 at the event carried on board [2003 contained fuel in excess of the 100l of fuel run in Magny-Cours and International Sporting allowed. counting towards the Code, Appendix J, GT2 2003 GT Championship, Technical Regulations, excluding car no. 89 Art. 257-6.5.1] (competitor Maranello) for exceeding the Parc fermé maximum fuel capacity allowed onboard the vehicle 1/2003 05.03.2003 DMSB X-Raid Cross Country Decision N° 3 of the Panel Time control; clocking The Court quashed the contested decision, on GmbH Rally of Stewards of 6 January of time cards [Special the grounds that the circumstances due to 2003 at the 2003 Rally of Regulations, Art. 17P1] which the appellant could not reach the Dakar, imposing a 9 min. checkpoint were not due to any fault of the penalty on team appellant, but were solely due to the Alphand/Stevenson organization of the event. (competitor X-Raid) for failing to reach a checkpoint

54

6/2002 3.10.2002 ACI Coloni F3000 Decisions N° 25, 26, 27 of Right of review; failure The Court invalidated Decision N° 25 concerning CSAI Motorsport the Panel of Stewards of by the Stewards to car N°3 of competitor Petrobas Junior team 14 September 2002 sufficiently motivate (driver Pizzonia), for failure to state grounds of concerning the event run their decision the decision. The Court however did find that in Monza counting car N° 3 was not in conformity with the technical towards the 2002 F3000 Bodywork and regulations due to the inversion of its wing and International dimensions; Front and consequently pronounced the exclusion of car Championship concerning rear wing [F3000 N° 3 from the event. the non-conformity of Technical Regulations, cars N° 3, 18 and 19 with Art. 3.1.1] The Court further dismissed the appeals against the Technical Regulations the competitor Arden International, as no Aerodynamic influence violation could be established, and invalidated [F3000 Technical Decisions N° 26 (concerning car N°18 of Regulations, Art. 3.16] competitor Arden International, driver Wirdheim) and N° 27 (concerning car N°19 of

competitor Arden International, driver Enge), on Anti-roll bars; rolling the grounds that the Arden International could chassis [F3000 not be penalized for a possible infraction which Technical Regulations, it had no power to know, given that the anti-roll Art. 2.4 and 10.1.7] bars were removed by the official FIA- designated manufacturer of the chassis for the F3000, Lola Motorsports. 5/2002 9.07.2002 KNAF Team GT Decision of the Panel of Required presence of The Court invalidated the contested decision on Carsport Stewards of 21 June 2002 at least three Stewards the grounds that the contested decision was Holland concerning the event run at a Meeting [2002 taken by two Stewards instead of the required at Jarama on 2 June 2002 International Sporting three, and that the competitor concerned was and counting towards the Code, Art. 134] not summoned in person to present its defence 2002 GT Championship, to the Panel of Stewards. excluding car N° 3 of Rights of defence; competitor Team Carsport obligation to summon Holland (driver Mr. party concerned by a Hezemans) Stewards’ decision [2002 International Sporting Code, Art. 153 and 175]

55

4/2002 9.07.2002 DMSB Freisinger GT Decision N °16 of the _ The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. Motorsport Panel of Stewards of 20 April 2002 concerning the event run at Magny-Cours on 19-21 April 2002 and counting towards the 2002 GT Championship 3/2002 30.04.2002 _ Christian Rally Decision N ° 7 of the Panel Requirement to submit The Court declared the appeal inadmissible, as Chemin of Stewards of 24 March an appeal to the ICA the appeal was brought by the competitor 2002 concerning the 38th through the instead of having been brought by the Rally of Catalunya and competitor’s ASN [2002 competitor’s ASN on his behalf. counting towards the International Sporting 2002 World Rally Code, Art. 185.2] Championship, excluding the driver Christian Obligation of the ASN Chemin from the event to assist a competitor in bringing an appeal to the ICA [2002 International Sporting Code, Art. 180]

Time-limits for notifying an appeal to the ICA [2002 International Sporting Code, Art. 186, para 2] 2/2002 29.04.2002 ACI Angelo Rally Decision N° 2 of the Panel Time-limits for The Court declared the appeal inadmissible, on CSAI Proietti of Stewards of 21 March notifying an appeal to account of the fact that no appeal fee was paid 2002 concerning the 38th the ICA [2002 to the ICA within the prescribed time limit. Rally of Catalunya and International Sporting counting towards the Code, Art. 186, para 2] 2002 World Rally Championship Time-limit for payment of the appeal fee [2002 International Sporting

56

Code, Art. 185.2 and 186]

1/2002 4.02.2002 MSA Allen Lloyd WTCC Decision by the French Track measurement The Court quashed the contested decision, on National Court of Appeal method [2001 the grounds that the track measurements by the of 25 October 2001 International Sporting Scrutineers were not taken in accordance with concerning the event run Code, Appendix K, Art. the relevant regulations, and that throughout at Dijon-Prenois on 23 11.10] the exclusion procedure, the International September 2001 and Sporting Code was not respected (the Stewards’ counting towards the Signature of Stewards’ decision did not mention the names of the 2001 European Challenge decisions Stewards, nor was it signed by the Stewards’ in for Historic Touring Cars question). [2001 International Sporting Code, Art. 174 d) and e), 175 and 177] 11/2001 10.12.2001 MNASZ Intermedia Rally Decision by the Hungarian Pump flow The Court postponed the examination of the Motorsport National Court of Appeal measurements; case until a future hearing and required the FIA Association of 19 October 2001 conditions in which the Technical Department to obtain from the concerning the 15th measurements must be manufacturer Mitsubishi an answer to the International Michelin taken question whether or not a filter was used when Rally of Budapest and measuring the flow specified on the counting towards the homologation form, when the said form was 2001 European Rally established. Championship, excluding car N° 6 (competitor Intermedia Motorsport Association) from the event 10/2001 30.10.2001 SBF Citroën Rallycross Decision by the Signature of Stewards’ The Court annulled the Contested Decision and Sweden Norwegian National Court decisions the Decision taken by the Stewards. The Court of Appeal of 18 [2001 International further ruled that car n°7 infringed the September, concerning Sporting Code, Art. regulations and imposed a fine of FF 10,000. the event run on 1-2 134] September 2001 in Lyngas and counting towards the Obstructive 2001 European

57

Champioships for manoeuvres; Rallycross Drivers overtaking [2001 International Sporting Code, Appendix L, Chapt. IV]

9/2001 26.11.2001 WAC _ _ Decision of the FIA World Striking off the rolls The Court ruled that the procedure followed Council for Touring & the [FIA Statutes] which led to the proposal of 18 June 2001 put Automobile, taken on of forward by the World Council to strike the WAC 18 June 2001 to expulse from the rolls was valid. the WAC

8/2001 26.10.2001 RIAC B&H Jordan F1 Decision N°31 of the Panel Thickness of the skid- The Court annulled the Contested Decision for Honda of Stewards taken at the block [2001 F1 violating the rights of the defence of the Formula One Grand Prix of Technical Regulations, competitor (only two Stewards of the Meeting, Indianapolis on 30 Art. 3.13.1.d] and not three, were present at the meeting September 2001, when the representatives of the Jordan Honda excluding driver Jarno Required presence of Team were heard). Trulli (Jordan Honda) for three Stewards and of non-compliance with Art. the Chairman [2001 3.13.1.d of the F1 International Sporting Technical Regulations Code, Art. 134] 7/2001 22.10.2001 ACI Tony Kart Karting Decision N°6 of the Panel _ The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. CSAI Racing of Stewards of 26 August 2001 6/2001 22.10.2001 Referral by Coli & Cie. Cross Country _ Prohibition on The Court held that it did not find any formal FIA Rally reconnaissance of the and irrefutable proof that the hand-written President route [Standard notes under review, which the Appellant alleges Regulations for FIA to be reconnaissance notes, were used or were ACM Cross-Country Rallies, in the possession of competitor MMC Sales Ile Art. 10.1] de France (team Kleinschmidt/Schultz) during the event. The Court also held that Article 171 of Procedure and time- the International Sporting Code and following, limits for appeal [2001 notably Articles 173 and 174, did not apply since the presumed discovery and proof of a possible

58

International Sporting infraction, which would be particularly serious, Code, Art. 171-174] only came to light after the running of the event.

5/2001 26.09.2001 Referral by Coli & Cie. Cross Country _ Prohibition on The Court postponed the examination of the FIA Rally reconnaissance of the case until a future hearing. President route [Standard Regulations for FIA Cross-Country Rallies, Art. 10.1]

Procedure and time- limits for appeal [2001 International Sporting Code, Art. 171-174] 4/2001 12.06.2001 RACMSA Lister GT Decision N°12 of the Panel Air feeding of the The Court confirmed the contested decision. Storm of Stewards of 20 May engine; Airbox Racing 2001, excluding the [2001 GT Technical competitor from the Regulations, Appendix event run in Zolder J, Art. 258-5.3.2] (Belgium) and counting towards the 2001 FIA GT Duty to comply with Championship the regulations at all times [2001 GT Technical Regulations, Appendix J, Art. 258- 2.6]

59

3/2001 1.06.2001 RACMSA British F1 Decision No. 44 of the Overtaking in a yellow The Court confirmed the contested decision. American Panel of Stewards of 13 flag zone [2001 Racing GP May 2001 at the Austrian International Sporting Ltd. Grand Prix Code, Annex H, Art. 4.1.2.b]

Use of video evidence by the Stewards in reaching a decision [2001 International Sporting Code, Article 149-e] 2/2001 19.03.2001 WAC Egypte _ Decision of the FIA Striking off the rolls The Court invalided the Contested Decision as General Assembly of 6 [FIA Statutes] the procedure followed for striking the Club October 2000 striking the from the rolls was not in conformity. Wedian Automobile Club from the rolls, for the unauthorized emission of customs documents

1/2001 5.03.2001 ACM Coli&Cie Cross Country Decision N°9 of the Panel Time-limits for The Court declared the appeal admissible and Rally of Stewards of 20 January notifying an appeal to confirmed the contested decision. 2001 concerning the the ICA or to a NCA Paris/Dakar event, [2001 International counting towards the Sporting Code, Art. 182 2001 World Cup for Cross- and 186, para 2] Country Rallies, imposing a one-hour time penalty Jurisdiction of the ICA; for car N°200 (driver J.-L. competence of the ICA Schlesser) to directly rule on appeals against Stewards’ decisions; required consent of the

60

ASN [2001 International Sporting Code, Art. 184.2]

Competition National Court of Appeal [2001 International Sporting Code, Art. 81, 180 and 182]

Waivers; Rules not complying with FIA regulations [Cross- Country Rally Regulations, Art. 1.6]

61