Ferrari’s 6H Spa Appeal Thrown Out in Court

The FIA’s International Court of Appeal has rejected Ferrari’s appeal against its rejected protest regarding the result of May’s 6 Hours of Spa-Francorchamps, thereby confirming Hertz Team JOTA as the official winners of the event.

Antonello Coletta, the brand’s global head of endurance, confirmed in June that Ferrari had filed an appeal after its initial protest was thrown out.

This came after the FIA had taken the decision to extend the overall duration of the race after a near two-hour red flag triggered by a crash involving Earl Bamber and Sean Gelael.

The decision to extend the race likely cost Ferrari victory as the No. 12 JOTA and No. 6 Penske Porsches pitted immediately before the red flag and were promoted to first and second when the race resumed.

Representatives from Ferrari, the FIA as well as JOTA and Porsche Penske Motorsport gathered in Geneva on Sept. 3 for the hearing, the decision of which was published on Tuesday.

Ferrari’s appeal was targeted against stewards’ decision No. 80, in which it is stated that it had filed an appeal against both stewards’ decision No. 71, which extended the race, as well as the provisional classification.

In its appeal, Ferrari argued that stewards breached the FIA World Endurance Championship sporting regulations by extending the race time to seven hours and 54 minutes, as it believes that Article 14.3.1 allows for the modification of the race time but may not exceed the time of the competition provided for in appendix 1 of the competition, which sets the race duration at 6 hours. 

Furthermore, it believes that its protest lodged after the race was incorrectly thrown out, claiming that it was authorized to protest against the decision to extend the race on the basis of article 7.2.6 of the WEC sporting regulations and of articles 13.2.1 and 13.7 of the International Sporting Code (ISC).

Additionally, Ferrari argued that the decision to extend the race could not be justified by sporting fairness based on pit stop timings and tires used, adding that the two Porsches were offered the opportunity to finish first and second “on a plate” as a result and costing the team 30 points in the WEC manufacturers’ standings.

For its part, the FIA argued that “correct reading of article 13.2.1 of the [ISC] means that a stewards’ decision cannot be protested, only appealed against,” adding that Ferrari “did not meet the requirements set by article 13.7 of the [ISC] to validly file a protest.”

It adds that, when a race is interrupted the red flag period can not be considered as part of the race duration, stating: “As no official report indicates anything more than a [six] hours duration of the race, the appellant cannot claim that the race lasted [seven] hours and 44 minutes. 

It countered Ferrari’s argument about the Porsches being handed first and second “on a plate” by saying the Italian manufacturer “failed to provide any evidence to support its assertion that its cars would have maintained their leading positions in the race if it had resumed for eleven minutes only.”

With regards to protesting the provisional classification of the race, the FIA argued that “as the appellant had confirmed that it had filed its protest against decision No. 71 and “consequently” against the provisional classification, this shows that the appellant tried with its protest, and tries with this appeal, to challenge decision No. 71 which is final and binding, which should lead to the rejection of the appeal.”

For their parts, JOTA and Porsche Penske laid out similar arguments, stating that stewards’ decisions are not subject to protest and Ferrari’s initial protest was therefore rightfully thrown out and stating that the decision to lengthen the race was both “competent” and “rightfully made.”

In its decision, the court of appeals ruled to uphold stewards’ decision No. 80, noting in its decision that Ferrari’s appeal was only filed against the initial rejection of its protest, as opposed to the decision to lengthen the race itself.

The court stated the following: “after having carefully reviewed articles 13.2.1 and 13.7 of the [ISC], the court finds that a decision of the stewards cannot be protested and that only three ways are open to correct such a decision or to challenge it: the correction of a clerical error, the right to review or the appeal.

It adds that stewards’ decision are not listed as cases which can be the object of protest in article 13.2.1, with article 13.7 stating that a protest is directed against a competitor or against one of the cases listed under the aforementioned article 13.2.1.

It goes on to state that the court rejects “all the submissions made by the appellant on this issue and concludes that a decision of the stewards cannot be protested.”

However, the court did take care to dismiss the FIA’s argument that Ferrari wasn’t able to protest the provisional classification, as that is “expressly mentioned” in the list of reasons for appeal in article 13.2.1.

It writes: “the protest filed by the appellant before the stewards was, on that point, admissible and the court concludes that the stewards were wrong to simply reject the protest on the only ground, although rightful, that a decision of the stewards cannot be protested.

“The stewards should in that respect have expressly dealt with the question of the provisional classification.”

However, the courts state that Ferrari had not appealed decision No. 71 within the one-hour time limit established by the ISC, therefore making the decision “final and binding.”

It rounded off by saying: “as the appellant does not raise any other argument against the provisional classification, respectively the final classification, the appeal must be rejected on this point as well.”

As a result of the decision, the No. 12 Porsche of Callum Ilott and Will Stevens has officially been declared the winner of the race.