布里亚托雷质疑FIA上诉法院法官独立性，法院发声明回应
国际汽联国际上诉法院发表声明为其程序辩护，此前阿尔派车队顾问弗拉维奥·布里亚托雷的言论似乎质疑了其中一名法官的独立性。
国际汽联国际上诉法院发布了一份声明，为其自身的程序进行辩护。此前，阿尔派车队F1执行顾问弗拉维奥·布里亚托利的言论似乎质疑了该法院陪审团中一名法官的独立性。
布里亚托利在周五意大利大奖赛的一场新闻发布会上公开向迈凯伦发难。此举发生在国际汽联通报其国际上诉法院裁定恢复皮埃尔·加斯利在6月摩纳哥大奖赛所受的两项五秒处罚之后——阿尔派此前曾成功将这些处罚撤销。
这意味着加斯利第二次失去了领奖台，尽管他此前以第三名的成绩冲线。
虽然布里亚托利表示他接受这一决定，但他也似乎质疑了在8月听证会上陪审团四名法官之一菲利波·马尔基诺的公正性。
布里亚托利一边不断参照一张纸上的内容，一边声称马尔基诺在听证会上表现得"非常恶劣"，并且"扮演着检察官的角色"。
"然后，我们发现了这家伙为什么这么恶劣的原因。他和迈凯伦关系非常密切。我很惊讶这个人和迈凯伦有联系，"布里亚托利说。
提到迈凯伦是切中要害的，因为它是与红牛一起对恢复加斯利第三名成绩的决定提出上诉的两支车队之一。
在国际汽联上诉法院周六上午发布的一份声明中，该法院否定了关于其法官遴选程序不公正的任何说法。
声明没有直接点名Briatore，但表示这些评论涉及案件ICA-2026-06-07-08-09——即由迈凯伦和红牛提起的诉讼案件的听证会。
FIA声明写道：“FIA法院希望明确，该案中法官的任命和参与，与任何其他案件一样，都是按照适用的FIA司法程序和惯例进行的，这些程序和惯例遵循最高标准，例如IBA关于国际仲裁中利益冲突的准则。”
“所有法官均由FIA代表大会选举产生，其中部分法官是根据至少五支F1车队组成的团体的提名、依照FIA章程选举产生的。”
“他们都受FIA司法和纪律规则中规定的独立性和保密性要求约束，每年向FIA合规官披露利益情况，并针对每个具体案件，结合所涉问题和有关各方签署一份特定的独立性声明，该声明会送达各方。”
国际上诉法院拥有一份由36位顶尖法律专家组成的名单，其中至少有八人会被选入一个候选池，每个案件均可从中挑选人选。
该候选池会提前告知相关各方，以评估是否存在"严重且客观的理由认为任何或全部入围法官因存在利益冲突或其他正当理由而应当回避"。
声明称这一程序已经进行，相关各方"被邀请就诉讼程序或法庭组成提出任何问题"。
"没有人这样做，"声明补充道，"在庭审过程中，没有人就法庭询问证人或进行诉讼程序的方式提出任何异议。"
“国际上诉法院强调，组建由来自不同文化和地域背景的法官组成的合议庭非常重要。这有助于确保审议和讨论反映多元的法律传统、观点和方法，进一步强化程序的公正性、独立性、可信度以及获得公平审判的机会。
“一项判决在其法律依据方面可能存在多种解释和评论的空间；这是公平的，并且为所有法官所接受。法院对程序的严谨性和法官的正直性充满信心。FIA法院仍然致力于维护法官的独立性与公正性，以及司法程序的完整性。”
英文原文
The FIA International Court of Appeal has issued a statement defending its processes in the wake of Alpine Formula 1 executive advisor Flavio Briatore's comments that appeared to question the independence of one judge on its panel.
Briatore started a public row against McLaren during a press conference appearance at the Italian Grand Prix on Friday. That came after the FIA communicated that its International Court of Appeal had ruled to reinstate the two five-second penalties that Pierre Gasly incurred at the Monaco GP in June, which Alpine had previously successfully had quashed.
This meant Gasly lost his podium for a second time, having crossed the line in third.
While Briatore said he accepted the decision, he also appeared to question the impartiality of one of the four ICA judges - Filippo Marchino - on the panel during the August hearing.
Reading from a piece of paper that he continued to refer to, Briatore claimed Marchino had been "very nasty during the hearing" and was "acting as a prosecutor".
"And after, we found out what is the reason why he's so nasty, this guy? He's very linked with McLaren. I'm very surprised this guy has the link with McLaren," Briatore said.
That McLaren mention is pertinent because it was one of two teams, alongside Red Bull, that had appealed the decision to reinstate Gasly to third place.
In a statement released on Saturday morning, the FIA Court of Appeal rejected any suggestion that the process of its selection of judges had not been impartial.
It did not name Briatore directly but said the comments related to case ICA-2026-06-07-08-09 - the hearing for the case brought by McLaren and Red Bull.
"The FIA courts wish to make clear that the appointment and participation of the judges in that case, like for any other case, were conducted in accordance with the applicable FIA judicial procedures and usual practice, which are inspired by the highest standards like the IBA guidelines on conflicts of interest in international arbitration," the FIA statement read.
"All judges are elected by the FIA general assemblies, some of them upon proposition of a group of at least five F1 teams in accordance with the FIA statutes.
"They are all subject to the independence and confidentiality requirements contained in the FIA judicial and disciplinary rules, make annual disclosures of interests to the FIA compliance officer, and sign a specific declaration of independence for each particular case in consideration of the issue at stake and the parties involved, which is served to the parties."
The International Court of Appeal has a roster of 36 leading legal experts, at least eight of whom are selected to be part of a pool that can be picked for each case.
This pool is communicated to relevant parties ahead of time to assess whether there are any "serious and objective reasons to consider that any or all of the shortlisted judges should be recused due to the existence of a conflict of interest or other legitimate grounds".
The statement said this had happened, with the relevant parties "invited to raise any issue concerning the proceedings or the composition of the court".
"None did so," the statement added. "No objection was raised during the hearing concerning the manner in which the court questioned the witness or conducted the proceedings.
"The ICA emphasises the importance of constituting panels with judges from different cultural and geographical backgrounds. This helps ensure that the deliberations and discussions reflect a diversity of legal traditions, perspectives and approaches, further strengthening the fairness, independence, credibility of the process and access to a fair trial.
"A court's decision can leave room for various interpretations and comments as for its legal merits; that is fair and accepted by all the judges. The court is confident in the soundness of the proceedings and the integrity of the judges. The FIA courts remain committed to the independence and impartiality of their judges and to the integrity of the judicial process."
The Race ·
内容来自公开信源，聚合内容版权归原作者与来源所有。