Newsgroup: it.sport.formula1
Titolo: [ENG] La sentenza completa

Augurandomi che non sia già stata postata in questa forma.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL (I.C.A.) of the FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE
DE L'AUTOMOBILE
CASE
Appeal brought by the Motor Sports Association (MSA) on behalf of its
competitor Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, against the decision (document 41)
taken by the Panel of the Stewards of the Meeting dated 21 October 2007
on the occasion of the 2007 Grand Prix of Brazil, run on 21 October 2007
and counting towards the 2007 FIA Formula 1 World Championship Hearing
of Thursday 15 November 2007
The FIA INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL, composed of Mr Jan STOVICEK
(Czech Republic), elected President, Mr John CASSIDY (United States), Mr
Vassilis KOUSSIS (Greece) and Mr José MACEDO e CUNHA (Portugal), Meeting
exceptionally in London on Thursday 15 November 2007, on account of the
strikes in the French capital, and at the request of several parties,
Ruling on the appeal brought by the Motor Sports Association (MSA) on
behalf of its Licence Holder Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, against the
decision (Document 41) taken by the Panel of Stewards of the Meeting on
21 October 2007 on the occasion of the 2007 Grand Prix of Brazil, run on
21 October 2007 and counting towards the 2007 FIA Formula One World
Championship,
Having heard, for the Motor Sports Association (MSA), Mr Robert Jones,
Secretary General on behalf of Vodafone McLaren Mercedes and for
Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, Messrs David Ryan, Martin Whitmarsh, Paddy
Lowe and Tim Murnane, assisted by Mr Ian Mill QC, Mr Andrew Hunter QC,
Mr Tom Cassels, Solicitor, Ms Sarah Inman, Solicitor, and Mr Jean-Pierre
Harb,
For AT&T Williams, Mr Sam Michael, Technical Director, Mr Tim Newton,
Race Team Manager, Mr John Healey, Head of Legal Affairs, and Ms
Michelle Dymott,
Assistant to Mr Healey,
For BMW SauberF1 Team, Mr Beat Zehnder, Team Manager, and Mr Wilhelm
Rampf, Technical Director, and Ms Monisha Kaltenborn-Narang, General
Manager Legal Services, assisted by Mr Ian Meakin,
For Scuderia Ferrari, Mr Stefano Domenicali, Team Manager, Mr Luca
Baldisserri, Head of Track Activities, Mr Luca Colajanni, Head of Motor
Sport Press Office, and Mr Sathia Jagesteen, assisted by Mr Massimiliano
Maestretti, Mr Nigel Tozzi QC, Mr Henry Peter, lawyer at Lugano, and Mr
Stefano Perucchi,
For the FIA, Mr Pierre de Coninck, Secretary General (Sport), Mr
Sébastien Bernard, Head of Legal Affairs, Mr Charlie Whiting, F1 Race
Director, and Mr Jo Bauer, F1 Technical Delegate,
After having given consideration to the carefully prepared briefs
submitted by the competitors listed above and the FIA, Having
acknowledged that the procedure was in order, the rights of each of the
parties having been duly examined, both in the proceedings which
preceded the hearing and during the hearing itself, the parties having
been duly heard and having provided all the detailed explanations
requested from them during the hearing and having received answer, with
the help of a simultaneous translation system which was recognised as
satisfactory by the parties,
WHEREAS on the occasion of the 2007 Grand Prix of Brazil, run on 21
October 2007 and counting towards the 2007 FIA Formula One World
Championship, the Stewards of the Meeting met to consider a report from
the FIA’s Technical Delegate that the fuel on board the cars run by BMW
Sauber F1 and AT&T Williams F1 was below the temperature permitted by
Article 6.5.4 of the FIA 2007 Formula One Technical Regulations. Having
investigated the matter and having heard those teams, the Panel of
Stewards of the meeting took a decision (document 41), concerning BMW
Sauber F1 and AT&T Williams, dated 21 October 2007, a decision based on
the facts at their disposal and according to which there was “sufficient
doubt as to both the temperature of the fuel actually on board the car
and the true ambient temperature as to render it inappropriate to impose
a penalty.”
WHEREAS on 23 October 2007, McLaren lodged an appeal with the
International Court of Appeal requesting that the International Court of
Appeal nullify the Stewards’ decision concerning the cars of BMW Sauber
F1 Team and AT&T Williams,
WHEREAS according to Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, there ought to have been
a sanction against the two teams concerned, which would have allowed it
to obtain the possible relegation of their three drivers, finishing the
event in fourth, fifth and sixth places respectively, so that Lewis
Hamilton, driving for Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, would take the fourth
place and thus be ahead of his rival in the World Championship, Kimi
Raikkonen,
WHEREAS, in effect, the request by Vodafone McLaren Mercedes is that the
Court annul a decision concerning parties other than itself and impose a
new decision, including sanctions, on those parties,
WHEREAS Article 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the International Court
of Appeal indicates that the International Court of Appeal may hear
“Appeals from decisions of the stewards of the meeting, lodged by at
least one of the parties concerned”,
WHEREAS the International Court of Appeal finds that the term “parties
concerned” in the Rules of Procedure of the International Court of
Appeal does not cover all parties whose interests may be affected by the
Decision in question. Most Stewards’ decisions have some effect on
competitors other than those to whom they are addressed and a right of
direct appeal is not foreseen for all such competitors. In this case too
the Stewards’ decision had some indirect effect on Vodafone McLaren
Mercedes, but it was not affected directly by the decision addressed to
BMW Sauber F1 and AT&T Williams,
WHEREAS the International Sporting Code has foreseen in a formal fashion
that in cases such as these the only recourse would be that set out in
Article 174 d of the International Sporting Code which foresees that
“Protests … referring to the noncompliance of vehicles with the
regulations and concerning the classification established at the end of
the event shall … be made within thirty minutes of the official
publication of the results.”,
WHEREAS it was therefore possible for Vodafone McLaren Mercedes to lodge
a protest which would have required the Stewards to take a Decision
addressed to them concerning the race classification. However, no such
protest was lodged,
WHEREAS Vodafone McLaren Mercedes have pointed out that the Stewards
noted McLaren’s intention to appeal and stated that their decision and
the classification of the race was subject to an appeal by Vodafone
McLaren Mercedes. This fact does not on its own confer upon Vodafone
McLaren Mercedes a right of appeal, nor does it indicate that any such
appeal, if lodged, would be admissible. While one may accept that
Vodafone McLaren Mercedes thought that it was applying the correct
procedure and that this appeared to be endorsed by the Stewards, this
cannot alter the application of the Code or the Rules of Procedure,
WHEREAS Vodafone McLaren Mercedes have submitted that a clarification of
the regulations in relation to fuel temperature is necessary and that
they are not merely pursuing a personal interest but also they are
interested in the application of provisions in a way which does not give
rise to doubts such as those in this case,
WHEREAS the International Court of Appeal must reply upon the strict
application of the rules in their current form and must apply the rules
that are in force,
AS TO THE SUBSTANCE,
DECLARES the appeal lodged by Vodafone McLaren Mercedes to be
inadmissible on account of the lack of direct interest in the decision
under appeal,
DECLARES that the only course that could have led to a modification of
the race classification would have been to lodge a protest against the
classification at the latest thirty minutes after the posting of that
classification,
LEAVES it to the appellant to pay the costs, in accordance with Article
190 of the
International Sporting Code and Article 24 of the Rules of the
International Court of Appeal.
Paris, 16 November 2007
PRESIDENT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ciao
lreds

 wrote:
Deplorevole dimenticanza alla quale pongo subito rimedio.
Per la sentenza completa:
http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/41681/
Per l'intervista a Sam Michael pubblicata sul NG (è un estratto):
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=41313
Per l'intervista completa a Sam Michael  "domande e risposte":
http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=General&PO_ID=41314
Ciao
lreds

 classification,
Non fa una piega.
-- 
Flavio Visentin
Scientists have finally discovered what's wrong with the female brain:
On the left side, there is nothing right, and on the right side, there
is nothing left.

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 00:56:12 +0100, lreds wrote:
[...]
Interessante lettura, grazie del post.
Una cosa sola mi sembra stranissima: perché c'era anche la Ferrari ?
Non essendo minimamente parte in causa non vedo logica nella sua
partecipazione (con grande stuolo di avvocati tra l'altro).

partecipazione (con grande stuolo di avvocati tra l'altro).
Provo a rispondere, ma devo fare un po' il sunto della situazione perché
la presenza della Ferrari IMHO dipende da questo.
Vista la mia profonda conoscenza delle pieghe regolamentari
probabilmente dirò un sacco di minchiate: così staneremo qualcuno
veramente esperto che per correggermi illuminerà entrambi.
Se ho capito bene, un appello contro una decisione dei commissari alle
verifiche post-gara può essere fatta solamente dagli interessati, dai
coinvolti in queste decisioni.
Per fare un esempio: nel dopo Sepang 1999 *solo* la Ferrari poteva
appellarsi contro la squalifica della vettura; non avrebbe potuto farlo
un'altra squadra che *per esempio* avesse comunque preferito una
vittoria della Ferrari rispetto alla vettura immediatamente alle sue
spalle.
Una squadra può invece fare reclamo contro l'ordine d'arrivo, se ritiene
che tale classifica l'abbia danneggiata per qualche irregolarità delle
vetture classificate davanti.
Per fare questo, però, vi sono termini ben precisi che nel caso McL non
sono stati rispettati.
Per questo tipo di reclamo non so dire, invece, se bisogna anche
dichiarare i motivi o le irregolarità sospettate che giustifichino il
reclamo.
Di conseguenza penso che la presenza della Ferrari fosse giustificata
come quella della McL, come possibilità di controllo o di contradditorio
per il rispetto delle procedure regolamentari.
Ciao
lreds

 per il rispetto delle procedure regolamentari.
Boh, scusami ma non vedo il nesso con le altre tue considerazioni.
Continuo a non capire perché la Ferrari, non essendo minimamente parte in
causa, abbia partecipato. Le possibilità di controllo sulla corte di
appello non vedo perché debba esercitarle una sola scuderia peraltro già
rappresentata alla FIA ed il contraddittorio non vedo come possa
argomentarlo la Ferrari a meno che non sia stata la Williams (l'unica, per
evidenti motivi, ad avere titolo per argomentare il contraddittorio sulla
tesi McLaren) a chiedere supporto "legale e morale" alla Ferrari stessa (ma
lo vedo improbabile).

 argomentarlo la Ferrari a meno che non sia stata la Williams
Sorry, volevo dire la BMW.

lo vedo improbabile).
Quello che intendevo dire è che dal momento che la FIA, tramite il
Tribunale di appello, ha accettato di prendere in considerazione le
opposizioni della McL, ha dovuto accettare la presenza ed il
contradditorio anche delle altre squadre che sarebbero state coinvolte
dalla sentenza.
E la Ferrari non lo era meno della McL.
In pratica, accettando il ricorso di fatto ha esteso arbitrariamente il
termine *coinvolto* al di fuori degli interessati e, di conseguenza, ha
dovuto estenderlo anche alla Ferrari.
Il fatto è che IMHO a norma regolamentare non doveva nemmeno esserci
quel tribunale d'appello, in quella forma.
Ciao
lreds

 > WHEREAS Vodafone McLaren Mercedes have submitted that a clarification
 > of the regulations in relation to fuel temperature is necessary and
 > that they are not merely pursuing a personal interest but also they
 > are
 > interested in the application of provisions in a way which does not
 > give rise to doubts such as those in this case,
Cerrrrto. I fotocopiatori vorrebbero un regolamento piu' preciso.

 quel tribunale d'appello, in quella forma.
Sono d'accordo, però così facendo il tribunale di appello FIA si è messo in
condizioni di prestare il fianco ad accuse di parzialità proFerrari. Molto
più opportuno sarebbe stato se oltre alla Ferrari avessero anche convocato
la Toyota e la Renault che avrebbero anche loro beneficiato da una
ipotetica squalifica Williams / BMW.

ipotetica squalifica Williams / BMW.
Mah. Forse il problema non sta nel Tribunale d'appello, in quanto
l'ammissibilità del ricorso McL (se ricordo bene) è stato dato dalla
FIA.
IMHO questa è la situazione che è stata portata davanti al Tribunale
d'appello, ma non è stata creata da quest'ultimo.
Tra l'altro, a differenza del Consiglio mondiale che ha giudicato la spy
story e che è formato dall'insieme dei rappresentati degli automobile
club di ogni nazione, il Tribunale d'appello è formato da giudici veri
che, almeno in teoria, dovrebbero essere meno influenzabili dal potere
sportivo.
Basti pensare che dopo la prima sentenza sulla spy story, con la McL
assolta, la Ferrari presentò appello ma Max Mosley, per evitare che a
decidere fosse un consesso meno influenzabile come, appunto, il
Tribunale d'appello, smentì la sentenza del *suo* consiglio mondiale e
ripresentò il caso davanti al *suo stesso* consiglio mondiale che rese
la sentenza che tutti sappiamo.
:-)
Ciao
lreds