How Gasly Went From Seventh to Third—and Back to Seventh

Pierre Gasly’s final reported result in the 2026 Monaco Grand Prix is seventh place. Alpine’s successful Right of Review initially removed two five-second pit-lane-speeding penalties and restored him to third. McLaren and Red Bull then won a formal appeal before the FIA International Court of Appeal, which reinstated both penalties. Isack Hadjar consequently regained third, while the FIA ordered amendments to the race classification and both championship points tables.

The short answer: Monaco’s result changed after the appeal

The FIA International Court of Appeal granted the appeals lodged by McLaren and Red Bull against the decisions that had removed Gasly’s penalties. It set aside the stewards’ June 12 decisions, reinstated both five-second penalties and ordered the resulting classification and championship changes, according to the FIA’s official Monaco appeal decision.

Secondary classification reporting gives the affected final order as:

1. Third: Isack Hadjar
2. Fourth: Oscar Piastri
3. Fifth: Liam Lawson
4. Sixth: Arvid Lindblad
5. Seventh: Pierre Gasly

The positions from third through seventh are reported by Crash.net’s account of the revised Monaco classification. The FIA’s published summary confirms the court’s orders but does not itself list those finishing positions.

Reapplying ten seconds to Gasly’s race time did more than exchange his place with Hadjar. It moved four drivers ahead of Gasly and required corresponding changes to the drivers’ and constructors’ championship records.

The result changed twice: a dated decision chain

Gasly’s position changed through two distinct procedures. Alpine first asked the stewards to review their own decisions. McLaren and Red Bull later appealed the stewards’ revised decisions to the International Court of Appeal.

Date	Decision-maker	Action	Gasly’s reported classification
June 7, 2026	Monaco Grand Prix stewards	Imposed two five-second pit-lane-speeding penalties	Seventh
June 12, 2026	Stewards, after Alpine’s Right of Review	Rescinded both penalties and amended the classification	Third
June 16–September 4, 2026	FIA International Court of Appeal	Appeals filed June 16, heard August 25 and published September 4; penalties reinstated	Seventh

The FIA decision establishes the June 7 penalties, June 12 review decisions, June 16 appeals, August 25 hearing in Paris and September 4 publication. The reported moves from third to seventh, back to third and finally to seventh come from the secondary classification reporting cited above.

The sequence matters because the result did not change only once. Gasly crossed the line third but was initially classified seventh after the two penalties were added. The stewards’ review then removed the combined ten-second addition. The later court ruling restored it.

A Formula 1 community discussion shared the ruling on its publication date. It is supplementary fan discussion, not evidence establishing the chronology or result; the FIA decision remains the controlling source for the court’s orders and dates.

Why Alpine’s Right of Review initially changed the result

A Right of Review asks the stewards to revisit their own decision. It is procedurally distinct from taking a revised decision to the FIA International Court of Appeal.

For Alpine’s request, the stewards found a significant and relevant new element that had not previously been available. The review followed disclosure of an error in the pit-lane distance used to calculate official speeds. That incorrect distance had reportedly caused Gasly’s calculated speed to be overestimated, according to reporting on the June 12 review.

Removing the two five-second penalties eliminated the ten-second addition to Gasly’s race time. The supported positional effects at that stage were Gasly’s restoration from seventh to third and Hadjar’s move from third to fourth. Positions below fourth should not be presented as a complete official interim order without the underlying amended classification.

Alpine maintained that Gasly had not exceeded the pit-lane speed limit. That was the team’s position, not an independently established technical finding from the later appeal ruling.

General Formula 1 guidance says a successful Right of Review usually requires qualifying new evidence that was unavailable when the original decision was made. In this case, the stewards accepted the newly disclosed timing information and changed their earlier decisions.

Why the later appeal reversed the stewards’ decision

McLaren and Red Bull challenged the June 12 decisions before the FIA International Court of Appeal. The court:

• declared the appeals admissible;
• granted both appeals;
• set aside the stewards’ June 12 decisions;
• reinstated each five-second penalty; and
• ordered consequential amendments to the race classification and championship points.

Those orders are established by the FIA’s official decision linked above. Once the June 12 decisions were set aside, the two penalties returned to Gasly’s race time and the revised sporting records had to be changed again.

The confirmed outcome must be separated from the court’s detailed reasoning. The FIA’s public summary establishes what the court ordered but does not reproduce its complete legal analysis. It therefore does not support attributing the ruling to a specific legal rationale that is absent from the summary.

The case also does not, on its own, establish universal rules about standing, deadlines or further remedies. Those issues depend on the applicable regulations and the facts of each proceeding.

What changed in the classification and championship

The supported before-and-after comparison is:

Position	After Alpine’s Right of Review	After the court appeal
Third	Pierre Gasly	Isack Hadjar
Fourth	Isack Hadjar	Oscar Piastri
Fifth	Not established here	Liam Lawson
Sixth	Not established here	Arvid Lindblad
Seventh	Not established here	Pierre Gasly

The June 12 reporting directly supports Gasly in third and Hadjar in fourth at the review stage. The final third-through-seventh order is supplied by the later classification report. Leaving the remaining interim positions unspecified avoids presenting a reconstructed sequence as an official classification.

Reinstating the combined ten-second penalty placed Hadjar, Piastri, Lawson and Lindblad ahead of Gasly. The effect therefore extended across five positions rather than only changing the final podium place.

The FIA also ordered consequential amendments to the drivers’ and constructors’ championship points. The published summary does not provide the complete revised points documents, so exact gains, losses and championship totals should not be reconstructed from it. Readers should use the relevant amended FIA event records once located rather than relying on an earlier standings table.

Right of Review versus appeal—and why Russell stayed 12th

The procedural distinction is narrow but important:

• Alpine’s Right of Review asked the stewards to revisit their own penalty decisions after a significant new element emerged.
• McLaren and Red Bull’s appeal took those revised decisions to the FIA International Court of Appeal.

George Russell’s result did not change because Mercedes withdrew its review request. Russell had not served his original time penalty during a safety-car pit stop and was subsequently given a drive-through penalty for failing to serve it. He then served the drive-through.

Mercedes concluded that reviewing the original penalty would not undo the drive-through that had already determined Russell’s finishing position. That was the team’s attributed legal analysis, not a universal rule governing every comparable case. Mercedes withdrew its request, and the BBC reported that Russell remained 12th.

The contrast turns on the different penalty sequences. Gasly’s two penalties were additions to his race time, so removing or restoring them directly changed his classification. Russell had already served a separate drive-through imposed after he failed to serve the original sanction. Mercedes concluded that pursuing review of the first penalty would not provide an effective route to reverse the result produced by the second.

Frequently asked questions

Can F1 race results and championship points change after the race?

Yes. A post-race penalty, successful Right of Review or appeal can require an official classification to be amended. When changed finishing positions carry different points, the drivers’ and constructors’ championship records can also be recalculated.

In Monaco, the stewards’ review first removed Gasly’s penalties. The later appeal set aside those decisions and required the sporting records to be amended again.

When was the final Monaco appeal decision published?

The FIA published the International Court of Appeal decision on September 4, 2026. The hearing had taken place in Paris on August 25, after McLaren and Red Bull filed their appeals on June 16.

These dates describe separate procedural steps: filing, hearing and publication did not occur together.

Where can readers find the official FIA appeal judgment?

The official ruling is available from the FIA decision page linked near the beginning of this article. The FIA also maintains an International Court of Appeal judgments index, where published cases can be located by year.

That index is different from the FIA’s Formula One event-document listings, which are used for items such as classifications and championship points.

The final record is the product of a five-step chain: penalty, Right of Review, reclassification, court appeal and final reclassification. Gasly is reported seventh and Hadjar third after the two penalties were restored; exact championship totals should be taken only from the FIA’s amended records.