Decision Date

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-2016- 16.09.2016 ACCUS Dragon 2015-2016 FIA Decisions Nos 5 and 10 Maximum energy The Appellant failed to provide proof that the 04 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 The penalties of driving through and stopping in seconds penalty) pit lanes and certain other penalties, including the Emerging from the pit time penalties, cannot be subject to an appeal lane in a potentially The Court stressed that it was not bound by dangerous manner (one- precedents, especially when it came to a legal second penalty) issue which had been dealt with only once by the Content of the ICA notification of appeal The FIA can freely decide how to organise its (reasons of the appeal) internal processes, which are clearly regulated by [Article 10.1.1 of the the ISC and the Regulations Judiciary and The Court can only check whether the Stewards Disciplinary Rules] are competent to impose time penalties, which Decisions which cannot was indeed so in the present case be subject to an appeal The appeals were inadmissible [Article 12.2.4 of the International Sporting Code] [Article 16.3 of the Formula E Championship Sporting Regulations]

ICA-2016- 09.06.2016 ACI-CSAI Honda 2016 FIA Decisions Nos 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 Compliance of the flat Stewards may only delegate their authority to the 03 Racing World Touring and 8 dated 26 May 2016 bottom and the rear Stewards of the subsequent event Team Jas Car of the Stewards of the hatch The Stewards having declared the cars compliant Championship Race of Germany related [Article 263 of the and authorised their start the competitors must be (WTCC) to the Races of Hungary International Sporting able to rely on the decisions issued by the and Morocco Code] Stewards in compliance with the principle of Delegation of powers of legal certainty the stewards The modification of a homologated part without [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- 13.07.2016 JAF Toyota 2016 World Decision No. 55 dated 7 Minimum driving time The notification of appeal did not include the 02 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 [Article 10.10.2 of the any margin of appreciation as to whether the lack 2016 WEC Sporting of 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- 27.05.2016 DMSB X-Raid 2016 Dakar Decision dated 2 March Refuelling during a The interpretation of the Dakar 2016 Cars/Trucks 01 2016 of the National Court Neutralisation section Regulations on whether refuelling was authorised of Appeal of the [Dakar 2016 or not “within the neutralisation of a selective Fédération Française du Cars/Trucks section” is a key argument of this case; Sport Automobile (FFSA), Regulations] This interpretation must be made in compliance having ruled on an appeal with the requirements set out in Articles 1156 et brought by X-raid seq. of the French Code Civil; Motorsport GmbH against In the present case, it must be concluded that the Decision No. 2.14 taken “Neutralisation section” is a “road section” in by the Stewards of the which the Regulations authorise refuelling:

Dakar 2016 on 12 January The appeal must be rejected 2016

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

ICA-2015- 28.07.2015 ÖAMTC Grasser Blancpain GT Decision dated 20 May Delegation of power of Scrutineering was not carried out in the 03 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-founded appeal against the decision Presence of an official and quashed the decision of the RACB Court of No. 43 dated 12 April representative of the Appeal as well as the Stewards’ original decision 2015 of the Stewards of competitor during the competition of Monza scrutineering [Article (Italy) 67 paragraph 3 of the GT3 Regulations] ICA-2015- 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 02 Powerteam May 2015 of the Stewards appeal [Article 12.1.1 the appeal on behalf of its licence-holder and it is Srl of the Monza competition of the 2015 JDR] not up to the Court to take into consideration the by which the Driver was 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 appeal Despite the request to withdraw the appeal, the during Race No. 2 of the [Article 12.2 of the very particular circumstances of this case made it Monza competition with 2015 JDR] necessary to hold a hearing to examine whether the obligation to start from or not the appeal, which allowed the appellant to the pit lane for the next benefit from the suspensive effect of the appeal, race the Driver will 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

ICA-2015- 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 01 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 driven of the 2015 JDR] appeal was lodged directly by a representative of by the Appellant had the competitor failed to meet the measurements required of There is nothing in the JDR or in the Code that 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- 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 the 04 Attiyah Rally November 2014 of the Court [Article 17.9 Stewards decision under appeal by its own Team Championship Stewards under which the 2014 JDR] decision in its full scope Appellant’s protest against Team Abu Dhabi Racing’s [Article 40.6.2 of the The Court finds that ensuring during a rally that car numbered 2 was FIA Middle East Rally all competitors follow the same itinerary is a 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 competition, besides the impact on the safety of Regional Rally the spectators. Regulations (the “FIA RRR”), under part “V3” (FIA RRR Appendix V3] The Court stresses that according to article 18.2 JDR, the expenses or legal defence fees of the [Article 18.2 2014 parties are not part of the costs awarded by the JDR] Court

The contested decision is set aside

ICA-2014- 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 by 03 Racing Car August 2014 of the [Article 12.3.4 of the the stewards, such breach has been cured by the Championship Stewards of the 2014 ISC] devolutive effect of this appeal before the Court. Argentinian competition in De novo power of the The same applies to the allegedly insufficient Thermas de Rio Hondo Court [Article 17.9 grounds of the Decision 2014 JDR] The administrative typewriting error made by the Stewards in their Decision did not mislead the Non conformity of the Appellant ground clearance of the The Court emphasises that the obligation front splitter [Articles 5 imposed on competitors to ensure that their cars and 6 of the FIA 2014 comply with the relevant regulations is an World Touring Car absolute and objective one and that the breach of Championship Sporting 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- 17.10.2014 HKAA Team Craft GT Asia Series Decision handed down by Jurisdiction of the The Court considers that the devolutive effect of 02 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 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- 14.04.2014 ÖAMTC- Infiniti Red F1 Decision dated 16th Duty to comply with The Court finds that (i) the TD are not legally 01 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 alternative which car No. 3 (Driver Regulations] to that foreseen by the TD will not satisfy the Daniel Ricciardo) was Fuel flow meter sensor 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- 20.12.2013 ACI-CSAI Tony Kart CIK-FIA KF Decision of the Stewards Violation of the The Court confirms the contested decision 06 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) Karting Circuits] with a 10-second time To leave the track and penalty to gain an advantage ICA-2013- 10.01.2014 ACI-CSAI Romeo Superstars Decision of the Motor Duty to comply with The Court: 05 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, whereby Regulations of the 2) Confirms the contested decision n° 5 dated 27 the two Romeo Ferraris International Series] September 2013 with respect to the finding that srl’s cars were excluded Conformity of the car’s cars n° 3 and n° 15 of Romeo Ferraris Srl did not for the Donington Park bonnets and flat bottom comply with the Technical Regulations event 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- ACCUS Devlin De Karting Decision dated 29 Gain of position from The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant 04 Francesco (Canadian September of the National contact [Standard Karting Court of ASN Canada karting penalties 1-15] Championship) FIA, 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- 10.09.2013 RAF G-Drive WEC Decision n°36 of the Race Duty to comply with The responsibility of the competitors to ensure 03 Racing Stewards of the Meeting in the regulations [2013 technical conformity of their car is absolute and Le Mans counting towards WEC Regulations, art. objective the 2013 FIA World 6 / 2013 International This does not mean the responsibility is without Endurance Championship Sporting Code, art. 123] any limits, as there could potentially occur very (WEC), under which the Severity of a sanction rare and exceptional situation, where highly Stewards decided to of exclusion for exceptional circumstances may be a reason for exclude G-Drive Racing’s breaching the duty to application of a less severe sanction than LMP2 car n°26 from the comply exclusion (not in the present case) Le Mans 24 Hours event The Court confirmed the Contested Decision on 2013 the basis that no exceptional circumstances existed in this case

ICA-2013- 28.02.2013 RACB Marc VDS Blancpain Decision n°3/2012 of the Power of the NCA and The Court: 02 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

dismiss the appeal filed by [2012, Blancpain 2) imposes a fine of 10,000 euros on the Belgian the Marc VDS racing team Endurance Series Audi Club Team WRT 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- 15.02.2013 CBA Sergio Karting IAME Decision of the National Time limit to notify an The Court quashes the Contested Ruling returned 01 Santos Court of Appeal of the appeal [JDR, art. 17.3] by the FFSA National Court of Appeal on 4 Sette Fédération Française du 30-day time limit for a December 2012 and confirms Decision n°41 Câmara Sport Automobile (FFSA) national court of appeal taken by the Panel of Stewards on 21 October Filho of 4 December 2012 to to issue a decision [ISC, 2012 quash Decision N°41 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] 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 in Race for a ride height n São Paulo on 15 infringement [article September 2012 – Event 10.1.1 of the LM GTE counting towards the 2012 Technical regulations FIA World Endurance for Grand Touring Car

Championship (WEC) 2012]

ICA-2/2011 27.10.2011 ACI-CSAI Chiesa Karting KF1 Decision n°46 taken by the Causing an incident The Court confirms decision of the Panel of Corse s.a.s. Stewards of the Meeting [2011 CIK-FIA World Stewards with regard to the responsibility of the on 3 September 2011 Karting Championship incident but annuls the sanction of exclusion and concerning Race 2 of the Regulations, General substitutes it with a penalty of 10 sec. event run at Genk Prescriptions, art. 2.24] (Belgium) counting towards the 2011 Prohibited manoeuvres CIK-FIA KF1 World liable to hinder other Karting Championship drivers [Code of Driving 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 2011 International Sporting FIA European Code, Art. 152, fifth 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 Conduct on Circuits Autosport Federatie (art. 2-b), Chapter IV of (KNAF) on 26 August Appendix L)] 2011 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 Stewards on 30 October reserved to use by a the Event. It ordered that, for the event held in Car 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 in the event run at Authorised gearboxes the 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] 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 car responsibility to produce a car that is in n 10 October 2010, 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. with its homologation form, but substituted the from the race 6 run at 257A-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 formulate October 2009 relating to the ICA [2010 ICA his appeal within seven days of the notification the affiliation of the Rules of Procedure, of the decision by the FIA General Assembly, as Automobile Club de Art. 17] required by Article 17 of the ICA Rules of l’Ouest to the FIA 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 the Panel of Stewards on 2 the friction block the basis that no exceptional circumstances AMR 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 car failed to comply with the is compliant [2010 GT1 minimum thickness World Championship prescribed by Article Sporting Regulations, 257.3.3.2.d.3 of Appendix Art. 5] J to the ISC 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 5 heads and cylinder with respect to the finding that Pekaracing NV December 2009, excluding block with breached Article 258.5.2.1 of Appendix J, but Pekaracing NV from the homologation form annulled the sanction of exclusion and replaced it results of the event held at [2009 International with a fine of €20,000. Zolder (Belgium) and Sporting Code, counting towards the FIA Appendix J, Art. GT Championship 2009, 258.5.2.1] due to non-compliance of the cylinder heads and Responsibility of the cylinder block with the competitor to ensure car homologation form is compliant [2009 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 the 25 October 2009, which International Sporting 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 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 to the decision is taken, rather than the nationality Organiserof setting aside the Decision render a decision within of the Stewards or any other criteria. The Court the of the Panel of Stewards 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 considered the Stewards [2009 by the Organising International Sporting 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 necessary GmbH Committee of the 2009 Sporting Code, Art. 25] authority to take the Contested Decision. Formula BMW Europe Series to exclude Mücke Power to impose Motorsport GmbH (cars penalties ; compatibility N° 15, 16, and 17) from with International the race run in Spa- Sporting Code [2009 Francorchamps (Belgium) Formula BMW on 28-30 August 2009 Regulations, Art. counting towards the 2009 3.36.3] 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 National Court of Appeal the regulations [2009 responsibility to produce a car that is in AMR 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 car in the amount of 10,000 euros upon the run at Oschersleben and 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 20/2009 6.10. 2009 QMMF Barwa Rally Decision N° 3 of the Panel Modifications to the The Court confirmed the Contested Decision, on Rally 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 with Event, with a drop to the last place. 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 case competitor Prospeed [General Prescriptions can be made that the modification is authorized Competition from the for Circuit events, Art. by some exception, which was not the case here. event run in Oscherleben 10(F)(b)] couning for the 2009 FIA Replacement or GT Championship, on the modifications to the

grounds that its engine cylinder block; was not in conformity with replacement or its homologation form machining of the 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 Unsafe release of the The Court confirmed the appeal and overturned Renault F1 Panel of Stewards taken car from the pit stop the Contested Decision. It further issued a Team on 26 July 2009 at the [2009 FIA Formula reprimand and imposed a fine of $50,000 upon Grand Prix of Hungary, One Sporting the Appellant, in accordance with Article 153 of suspending ING Renault Regulations, Art. 23.1.i the International Sporting Code. team (driver F. Alonso) and Art. 3.2] Severity from the next event of the of sanction imposed 2009 FIA Formula One Right of an affected World Championship for party to be heard by the releasing car no. 7 from ICA [2009 ICA Rules the pit stop without one of of Procedure, Art. 21] 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 confirm Appellant did not meet the formal and mandatory 2009 FIA World Touring intention to appeal by technical requirements set out in the ICA Rules Car Championship, letter [2009 ICA Rules of Procedure for filing an appeal with the ICA. rejecting a request by of Procedure, Art. 14]; SEAT Sport to annul Performance certain decisions by the adjustments; technical TC 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 5/2009 15.04.2009 ÖAMTC Red Bull F1 Decisions No. 16 to 24 Obligation to comply The Court rejected the appeals and confirmed the 6/2009 Racing taken by the Panel of with the regulations at 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 car 13/2009 Marlboro Formula One Technical is in compliance with Regulations 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 WTCC Decision N°12 by the Causing a collision The Court declared the appeal inadmissible in so Sport Panel of Stewards of 22 [2009 WTCC Sporting far as the drive-through penalty is concerned, this March 2009 at the event Regulations, Art. 42] 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 grid imposed a drop of ten grid positions suspended grid positions, both positions; drive-through for three events, on the grounds that Art. 44 of suspended for three penalty [2009 WTCC the WTCC Sporting Regulations allows the events, for having caused Sporting Regulations, Stewards to impose only one of the three a collision Art. 44] penalties foreseen by that Article and thus does not permit the Stewards to impose a drive-

through penalty in addition to a grid position Requirement that the penalty. Stewards mention a 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 Working Group and declared Nicos Thomas the Referral by Group declaring Nick MERC Regulations, winner of the 2008 Middle East PSD award, on Art. 40; Pirelli Star FIA Rally Georgiou the winner of the the grounds that the “Pirelli Star Driver Award President 2008 Middle East PSD Driver Award Conditions” constituted the applicable regulation Conditions] 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 and Assembly of 7 November 2008 to transfer the November 2008 to transfer accompanying report Sporting Power in India from the MAI to the the Sporting Power in ahead of a General FMSI India from the MAI to the Assembly meeting [FIA FMSCI 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 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 homologate (new) grounds that Article 257-10.4 of Appendix J to n July 2008 concerning the suspension elements the 2008 International Sporting Code, which 2008 FIA GT prior to use in a race states that “all new suspension elements must be Championship, race 3 run [2008 International homologated”, did not exempt the suspension in Adria (Italy) on 20 June Sporting Code, arms in question from specific homologation. 2008, excluding cars n°60 Appendix J, Art. 257- and °61 of the competitor 10.4 and 257-10.1.2.a] The Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Prospeed Competition due specific parts used at the Race were homologated to a failure to at the time of their actual use during the Race, as

appropriately homologate required by Article 257-10.4 and Article 257- the cars’ suspension arms 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. 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 defense the Sporting Power in country to hold the were breached by the FIA’s failure to give the India from MAI to FMSCI Sporting Power [2008 MAI sufficient notice of the vote leading to the FIA Statutes, Art. 4] contested decision and to allow it an opportunity to present its arguments. The Court moreover Procedure in case of found that the mandate given by the General expulsion of a Member Assembly to the WMSC in this matter could not of the FIA [2008 FIA be regarded as a mandate for the WMSC to Statutes, Art. 27(d)] 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 during proper place in the classification. towards the 2008 FIA GT the servicing of a car Championship, excluding [2008 FIA GT car n°61 from the race Championship Regulations, Art. 104 and 109] 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 B. Longin, that sanction being suspended for one International Sporting year and becoming become effective if they Code, Art. 58, 151(c) should commit a similar offence calling into and 153] 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 and Int’l Racing National Court of Appeal collision of two confirmed the ten-second penalty decided by the System of 22 October 2007 competitors [2007 FIA Panel of Stewards, in pursuance not of Article 12 concerning the event run European Truck Racing of the European Truck Racing Championship at Jarama (Spain) on 7 Championship regulations, but of Articles 9.6 and 9.7.1 of the October 2007 and Regulations, Art. 9.6 same Championship regulations and Articles 141 counting towards the 2007 and 12] and 153 of the International Sporting Code. FIA European Truck 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] 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 cars; did not violate the rights of defense of the ELPA Rally run in Greece communication by the Appellant. on 5-7 October 2007 and Stewards to the counting towards the 2007 contestant regarding 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 [2007 ICA Rules of held that the only manner for the Appellant to 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 the infringement of the appeal the classification posting of that classification. permitted fuel or non-compliance of a temperature, and counting vehicle [2007 towards the 2007 FIA International Sporting Formula One World Code, Art. 174d] Championship

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 formulate Team Eurocup of 16 May 2007 the ICA [2007 ICA his appeal within seven days of the notification concerning the “Formula Rules of Procedure, of the decision of the Belgian National Court of

Renault 2000 – Eurocup” Article 17] Appeal, as required by Article 17 of the ICA event run on 21-22 April Rules of Procedure. 2007 at Zolder (B) 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 imposed by the Panel of 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 Purpose of cockpit counting towards the 2007 lights and precedence FIA 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 Code

5/2007 12.10.2007 MSA Vodaphone F1 Decision N°26 of the The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. McLaren Panel 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 counting appeal before it Appellant, on the grounds that the Stewards of towards the 2007 FIA GT the Meeting do not have the ability or the right to Championship imposing a Time-limit for payment substitute for the ICA, which is in this respect the penalty on PK Racing for of the appeal fee [2007 only competent judge to give a ruling on the exceeding the maximum ICA Rules of admissibility of an appeal. The Court, however, fuel capacity allowed Procedure, Art. 15] confirmed the contested decision in so far as it onboard the vehicle imposed a penalty on the Appellant for

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]

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 this

ordering the cancellation penalty appeared insufficient, and increased the of all qualifying times and Responsibility for an fine to €6,000. a drop of 10 grid positions incident [2007 FIA in the second race of the WTCC Regulations, next event, and imposing a Art. 42] 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 Appellant Autoclub of the Czech Statutes, Art. 4] on the grounds that the latter did not adduce Republic (ACCR) of its proof of a transfer of Sporting Power from Sporting Power to the Delegation of the ACCR to ABA. commercial company Sporting Power [2007 ABA without consent of FIA Statutes, Art. 5] the FIA

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 the FIA National Court of Appeal International Sporting grounds that an infringement was committed by President of 24 October 2006, Code, Art. 92] the Appellant regardless of whether or not it was quashing Decision N° 21 his intention to commit that infringement. The of the Panel of Stewards Penalty for false start Court also declared null and void Decision N° 21 of 3 September 2006, [2007 International of the Panel of Stewards on the grounds that the imposing a ten-second Sporting Code, Art. 94] Race Director was not heard, in breach of Art. penalty on competitor 174-e of the International Sporting Code. The

CRG S.p.A., at the event Court further exercised its right to hear a case

at Mariembourg (BE) and Hearing of the Race before a lower court and imposed a ten-second counting towards the 2006 Director in the event of penalty on the Appellant pursuant to Article 2.24 CIK-FIA Karting Super a protest [2007 of the CIK-FIA General Prescriptions, on the ICC World Cup International Sporting grounds that the driver anticipated the start in Code, Art. 174-e] breach of Article 92 and 94 of the International Sporting Code and Article 2.20-K of the CIK- Starting procedure and FIA General 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 the charges against it; (ii) the Stewards in making at Angerville on 28 Stewards to sufficiently their decision were entitled to rely on video September-1 October 2006 motivate their decision evidence provided to them after the event and excluding driver [2006 International concerned; and (iii) examination of the video Francesco Antonucci Sporting Code, Art. evidence revealed the presence of a second (competitor Vortex srl) 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 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 Decision of the Belgian Right of a third party to The Court declared admissible the appeal by CSAI Multiracing by 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 party) April 2006 counting adversarial principle had failed to respect the adversarial principle and towards the World Series had not given these parties an opportunity to

by Renault 2006, ruling assert their rights of defense. R.C. Cutting a chicane jointly on two separate Motorsport appeals lodged by resp. (third party) The Court invalidated the contested decision on Draco Multiracing USA the grounds that the Belgian NCA (i) was wrong

and Eurointernational, and to combine two appeals which concerned annulling the results of different races and different decisions with 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 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. [WRC Regulations] that the appellant adduced insufficient proof that 35 (driver Per-Gunnar the Scrutineer’s report, on which the contested Andersson) from the Rally Persons authorized to 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 The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. Racing Panel of Stewards of 28 Team May 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 a confirmed Decision N° 37 of the Panel of of 24 July 2006 and its race [2006 International Stewards, on the grounds that the Stewards have revised decision of 1 Sporting Code, Art. the power to annul the results of a race when the September 2006, 141] circumstances of the race make it impossible to concerning the event run establish a fair classification, so as to avoid as Varennes sur Alliers on Difference between an unfair treatment of the competitors. 25 June 2006, counting individual penalty and towards the 2006 CIK-FIA an overall sanction European Championship (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 of off the rolls FIA Members [FIA 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 car The Court quashed the contested decision on the Competitio of Stewards of 25 to contain at least three basis that doubts remain as to the precise manner n November 2005, liters of petrol for the in which to remove the required fuel from the excluding team taking of fuel samples tank and the possibility of removing additional Lamy/Gardel (competitor [2005 GT Sporting fuel from the tank in question. Larbre Competition) from Regulations, Article the event run in Bahrain 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 _

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 insofar as the nullity of Decision N°17 is of 21 September 2005 Technical concerned on the basis that the competitor’s annulling, for obstruction Regulations, Articles rights of defense were obstructed. However, as to of rights of defense, 1.3, 4.2 and 10] the substance, the Court quashed the contested Decision N° 17 of the decision for failing to rule on the competitor’s Panel of Stewards of 21 Failure to meet the violation of the technical regulations with regard August 2005 excluding required weight of the to the weight of the kart. Re-ruling on the driver Nathanael Berthon car due to force matter, the Court confirmed that driver Nathanael from the event run at La majeure [2005 General Berthon (competitor Jean-Yves Berthon) must be Conca and counting Prescriptions, Article excluded from the pre-final race run at La Conca towards the CIK-FIA 12(A)(c)] on the grounds that the applicable technical European Intercontinental regulations were not respected.

A Championship Rights of defence

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

18/2005 13.09.2005 ACI Alfa WTCC Decision N° 8 of the Panel The Court confirmed the contested decision on CSAI Romeo of Stewards of 30 July the basis that the relevant facts constituted a Racing 2005 concerning the racing incident. Team 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 WTCC Decision N° 7 of the Panel The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. CSAI Romeo of Stewards of 30 July Racing 2005 to exclude driver Team 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

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

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 F1 Decision of the World The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. GP Motor Sport Council of 29 Engineerin June 2005 finding the g Ltd seven Michelin teams guilty of failing to ensure _ that they were in possession of suitable tyres for the 2005 US Grand Prix

9/2005 19.07.2005 MSA Aston Mobil 1 Decision of IMSA's The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. Martin Twelve Hours Appeal Review Board of Racing 21 April 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 WTCC Decision of the Panel of Filing of an appeal to The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. CSAI Romeo Stewards of 15 May 2005 the ICA; requirement to Racing confirm intention to The Court held that, in any event, in the absence Team 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 F1 Decision N° 49 of the Weight of the car The Court invalidated the contested decision and the FIA Strike BAR Panel of Stewards of 24 [2005 F1 Technical declared that the competitor failed to comply Honda April 2005 at the San Regulations, Art. 1.9 with the applicable regulations by using an Marino Grand Prix and 1.10, Art. 4.1] underweight car. The Court excluded competitor (Imola) refusing to take Lucky Strike BAR Honda from the event in action against driver Weighing of the car question and from the next two events. The Court Jenson Button for using an after the race further suspended the competitor for a period of underweight car [2005 F1 Sporting six month after the mentioned two events, with Regulations, Art. 77-a- this penalty suspended for a period of one year. 4 and 77-b] 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 Engineerin Formula of Stewards of 6 October g Renault V6 2004 disqualifying car N° 11 for not being in conformity with the _ Technical Regulations

3/2005 24.02.2005 ACS Loris GT Decision of the Italian The appeal was withdrawn by the Applicant. Kessel National Court of Appeal Racing 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 German National Court of 24 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

8/2004 03.11.2004 ACL Jama Formula 1600 Decision of the Spanish Irregularity in the The Court invalidated the contested decision on Investments (International National Court of Appeal scrutineering the grounds that the brake pads used by the Luxembour Series) of 15 July 2004, procedure; Impartiality competitor were in conformity with the g confirming Decision N° 3 in the organization of a applicable technical regulations, and invalidated of the Panel of Stewards race [2004 International Decision N°3 of the Panel of Stewards, based of 20 June 2004 at the Sporting Code, Art. inter alia on the irregularities that appear to have event run in Valencia and 136] taken place during the scrutineering procedure. counting towards the 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 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 Air boxes; Restrictors The Court confirmed the contested decision, on CSAI Srl Panel of Stewards of 5 blocking the air feeding the grounds that the car in question was not in September 2004 at the the engine [2004 conformity with the applicable regulations. event run at Imola and International Sporting counting towards the 2004 Code, Appendix J, Art. 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 2004 brake system whilst the 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 software- event [2004 F1 controlled device Technical Regulations, connecting the front Art 2.4] wheels via drive shafts and

allowing controlled torque transfer from a faster Possibility to seek wheel to a slower wheel clarification from the even under braking FIA Technical Dept regarding new designs 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 GT Decision N° 16 of the Parc fermé [2004 The Court annulled the contested decision, and Racing Panel of Stewards of 27 International Sporting replaced the time penalty imposed by the June 2004 at the event run Code, General Stewards with a more lenient penalty consisting at Donington and counting Prescriptions, Art. of a USD 15,000 fine, for making an unjustified towards the 2004 GT 21(c); 2004 GT stop before proceeding to the parc fermé. Championship, imposing a Sporting Regulations, 5 min. penalty on driver Art. 158] 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 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 and Motors National Court of Appeal appeal a Stewards’ declared the appeal admissible on the grounds B.V. of 11 December 2003 decision; National that the appellant had a manifest interest in filing confirming Decision N° appeal procedure the appeal. The Court, however, noted that it is 13 of the Panel of [2004 International not competent to examine the regular application Stewards of 19 October Sporting Code, Art. of the procedure by which an ASN granted a 2003, which had dismissed 182] license to a competitor. a protest by Carly Motors against the classification Competence to examine Given that both drivers carried out manoeuvres of the race run in Monza the validity of a license; likely to hinder the other drivers, and given the and counting for the 2003 Jurisdiction of ASNs impossibility to apply after the race the penalties European Touring Cars [2004 International set out at Article 37, the Court imposed a fine of Championship, following Sporting Code, Art. 47] USD 25,000 on both competitors. a collision between drivers

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 the Authorized Stewards to impose a fine modifications to the of € 2,000 on competitor engine [Technical Aqua Nova Racing Team Regulations, Art. 1] (driver Wolf Henzler) for non-conformity of the weight of the engine flywheel, by the exclusion of car n° 3 of driver Wolf Henzler 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, replacing Imposition of penalties manner. the Decision of the on a driver involved in Stewards to exclude car

n°5 (competitor Infineon an incident Farnbacher; driver Frank Stippler) from the race for Xxx [2003 International having caused a collision Sporting Code, Art. with driver Wolf Henzler 189] (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; overtaking the grounds that the collision was attributable to September 2003 at the [2003 International driver Jamie Campbell-Walter who had even run at Oscherleben Sporting Code, obstructed the driving line of driver Philippe and counting for the 2003 Appendix L, Chapt. IV, Alliot. GT Championship, 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 and Motors Rally Stewards of 16 August itinerary indicated in excluded car no. 201 of competitor Coli & Cie 2003 at the Rallye the Road Book; passage (crew Schlesser / Lurquin) for failing to respect d’Orient and counting of check points the itinerary indicated in the Road Book from the towards the 2003 World [Rallye d’Orient 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 F1 Decision N°41 of the Penalties; Permission to The Court invalidated the contested decision and GP Panel of Stewards of 3 inflict penalties in replaced the drop of ten grid positions by a more Engineerin August 2003 at the addition to or instead of appropriate penalty, namely a fine of USD g Ltd German Grand Prix, penalties available 50,000. The Court further referred the case back imposing a drop of ten under the International to the Stewards in order to examine the grid positions on Ralf Sporting Code [2003 F1 responsibility incurred by driver Rubens Schumacher at the starting Sporting Regulations, Barichello and Kimmi Raikkönen in the same grid of the next Grand Prix Art. 59] incident. for having caused a collision 5/2003 15.07.2003 ACI BMS GT Decision N°33 of the Authorized The Court invalidated the contested decision, on CSAI Scuderia Panel of Stewards of 29 modifications to the the grounds that the alterations made by the Italia June 2003 at the event run engine; lubrication of appellant did not infringe the relevant in 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] 4/2003 15.07.2003 KNAF Zwaans GT Decision N°32 of the Ventilation system; The Court confirmed the contested decision, on Racing Panel of Stewards of 29 cockpit ventilation; the grounds that the ventilation system of the June 2003 at the event run equipment permitted in appellant’s car was not in compliance with the in Donington Park the cockpit; rear relevant rules. counting towards the 2003 window [2003 GT Champioship, International Sporting excluding car no. 18 Code, Appendix J, GT (driver Rob van der Technical Regulations, Zwaan) from the event for Art. 258-3.4, -13.2.1, non-conformity of its and -15.3] ventilation system 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 car Italia May 2003 at the event run the engine [2003 was not in compliance with the relevant rules in Enna Pergusa, counting International Sporting 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 not stewards that the car is in compliance in compliance with the regulations [2003 International Sporting Code, Appendix J, GT1 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 run carried on board [2003 contained fuel in excess of the 100l of fuel in Magny-Cours and International Sporting allowed. counting towards the 2003 Code, Appendix J, GT2 GT Championship, Technical Regulations, excluding car no. 89 Art. 257-6.5.1] (competitor Maranello) for exceeding the maximum Parc fermé 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 the GmbH Rally of Stewards of 6 January of time cards [Special grounds that the circumstances due to which the 2003 at the 2003 Rally of Regulations, Art. 17P1] appellant could not reach the checkpoint were Dakar, imposing a 9 min. not due to any fault of the appellant, but were penalty on team solely due to the organization of the event. Alphand/Stevenson (competitor X-Raid) for failing to reach a checkpoint 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 N° Championship concerning rear wing [F3000 3 from the event. the non-conformity of cars Technical Regulations, N° 3, 18 and 19 with the Art. 3.1.1] The Court further dismissed the appeals against 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 it Technical Regulations, 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 at The Court invalidated the contested decision on Carsport Stewards of 21 June 2002 least three Stewards at a the grounds that the contested decision was taken Holland concerning the event run Meeting [2002 by two Stewards instead of the required three, at Jarama on 2 June 2002 International Sporting and that the competitor concerned was not and counting towards the Code, Art. 134] summoned in person to present its defence to the 2002 GT Championship, 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] 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 Requirement to submit The Court declared the appeal inadmissible, as Chemin Panel of Stewards of 24 an appeal to the ICA the appeal was brought by the competitor instead March 2002 concerning through the of having been brought by the competitor’s ASN the 38th Rally of Catalunya competitor’s ASN on his behalf. and counting towards the [2002 International 2002 World Rally Sporting Code, Art. Championship, excluding 185.2] the driver Christian Chemin from the event Obligation of the ASN 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 to 2002 concerning the 38th the ICA [2002 the ICA within the prescribed time limit. Rally of Catalunya and International Sporting counting towards the 2002 Code, Art. 186, para 2] World Rally Championship Time-limit for payment of the appeal fee [2002 International Sporting 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 the National Court of Appeal method [2001 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 the at Dijon-Prenois on 23 11.10] exclusion procedure, the International Sporting September 2001 and Code was not respected (the Stewards’ decision counting towards the 2001 Signature of Stewards’ did not mention the names of the Stewards, nor European Challenge for decisions was it signed by the Stewards’ in question). Historic Touring Cars [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 case Motorsport National Court of Appeal measurements; 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 2001 homologation form, when the said form was 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 the Sporting Code, Art. regulations and imposed a fine of FF 10,000. event run on 1-2 134] September 2001 in Lyngas and counting towards the Obstructive 2001 European manoeuvres; overtaking Champioships for [2001 International Rallycross Drivers 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 F1 Decision N°31 of the Thickness of the skid- The Court annulled the Contested Decision for Jordan Panel of Stewards taken at block [2001 F1 violating the rights of the defence of the Honda the Formula One Grand Technical Regulations, competitor (only two Stewards of the Meeting, Prix of Indianapolis on 30 Art. 3.13.1.d] and not three, were present at the meeting when September 2001, the representatives of the Jordan Honda Team excluding driver Jarno Required presence of were heard). Trulli (Jordan Honda) for

non-compliance with Art. three Stewards and of 3.13.1.d of the F1 the Chairman [2001 Technical Regulations International Sporting 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 and FIA Rally reconnaissance of the irrefutable proof that the hand-written notes President route [Standard under review, which the Appellant alleges to be Regulations for FIA reconnaissance notes, were used or were in the ACM Cross-Country Rallies, possession of competitor MMC Sales Ile de Art. 10.1] France (team Kleinschmidt/Schultz) during the event. The Court also held that Article 171 of the Procedure and time- International Sporting Code and following, limits for appeal [2001 notably Articles 173 and 174, did not apply since International Sporting the presumed discovery and proof of a possible Code, Art. 171-174] infraction, which would be particularly serious, 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 case FIA Rally reconnaissance of the 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 Air feeding of the The Court confirmed the contested decision. Storm Panel of Stewards of 20 engine; Airbox Racing May 2001, excluding the [2001 GT Technical competitor from the event Regulations, Appendix run in Zolder (Belgium) J, Art. 258-5.3.2]

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] 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 from October 2000 striking the 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 2001 Sporting Code, Art. 182 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 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]