Inside the FIA Red Bull hearing

In comparison to the executions of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI, which were staged in the grand square when Paris's Place de la Concorde adjacent to the River Seine was named Place de la Revolution, the FIA Court of Appeal hearing that took place there yesterday to investigate whether or not Daniel Ricciardo should be given back his second place in the Australian Grand Prix was of little historical significance.

But it was a far more important case than one merely deciding whether or not Red Bull got its points back. The viability of Formula 1's fuel-efficient brave new engine world was at stake, and it was essential that things should be done in the right way for such a vital test case.

Number 8 Place de la Concorde, the long-time headquarters of the FIA, is an old-world sort of place, but the proceedings that took place inside on Monday were far more modern. Not just in terms of content, with talk of ultrasonic fuel-flow meters and fuel-rail readings dominating, but in terms of the legal process that took place.

Given the environs, the ambience of which is more belle epoque than 21st century, it's easy to dismiss any proceedings taking place within the FIA as being rooted in the days when wealthy men in smoke-filled rooms decided the fates of nations.

Perhaps it was once like that within the FIA. But to its credit, Monday's Court of Appeal hearing was symptomatic of a slightly more open organisation. This was not simply a kangaroo court designed to reach the conclusions desired by those in power.

By allowing media, including AUTOSPORT, to watch the proceedings (not a new measure, but one that has not always been available in the past), which lasted six hours including a brief adjournment, the FIA's hearing can't be said not to be transparent. Despite the perfunctory nature of the announcement of the verdict today, a full, in-depth document will be issued by the end of this week.

The FIA headquarters © XPB

While some may be frustrated at that delay, such documents do take time to produce. Indeed, when questioned during the Malaysian GP weekend about why it took so long for an announcement on Ricciardo's exclusion to be made in the first place, race director Charlie Whiting pointed out that, in this case, part of the delay was down to how long it took to produce an explanation of the decision.

The reasons published ran to over 700 words and gave a reasonably thorough explanation of the decision, which is to be commended.

In the past, there have been times when the lack of explanation has led to confusion as to the nature of the offence and the rationale behind punishment, inevitably giving rise to doubts about the motivations of such decisions.

But partly as a result of the problems it had when the World Motor Sport Council issued punishments to Pat Symonds and Flavio Briatore over the 2008 Singapore GP crash controversy - which a French court later asserted it did not have the power to do - necessitating reforms, things have improved significantly in this area.

The proceedings themselves could not be said to be anything other than thorough. Prior to Monday's hearing, vast dossiers of evidence and witness statements had been compiled from Red Bull, rival teams, FIA personnel and engine suppliers.

With Jean-Christophe Breillat overseeing proceedings, taking every opportunity to remind all those present to be brief, the key points were covered quickly. Inevitably, there were times when matters drifted into arcane and, on occasions, irrelevant detail - that's just the nature of court proceedings.

Set more in a conference room than a courtroom, the format was simple. Red Bull and the FIA were allowed to present their cases, via the usual introductory comments and then the calling of witnesses. With F1 teams also allowed to attend and, should they desire, participate in proceedings, Mercedes decided to play an active role in proceedings, with Paul Harris QC adding significant firepower to the FIA's case.

In addition, Williams, Lotus, Force India and McLaren were all represented, but opted only to observe the proceedings and declined to participate in the hearing itself.

While it may seem unusual for Mercedes to play such a significant role in proceedings, this is an entitlement that all teams have. Last year, Red Bull was happy to call for increased punishment for Mercedes over its secret Pirelli tyre tests, just as Mercedes was keen to highlight the provision for increased sanction available to the court. Funny that...

With witness statements already gathered, there was little need for an endless parade of team and FIA personnel to 'take the stand'. Only six witnesses needed to be heard. Two were Red Bull employees - chief technical officer Adrian Newey, chief car engineer Paul Monaghan and, for brief questioning, R&D project engineer Jeff Calam - along with Mercedes race team electronics leader Evan Short, Renault mechanical engineer David Mart and FIA head of powertrain Fabrice Lom.

Points were not the only thing at stake in Paris © XPB

All had the chance to question them and pore over the relevant graphs and data, with Red Bull determined to prove it had not exceeded the 100kg/h maximum fuel-flow rate, and the FIA equally motivated to prove it had.

Everyone had their say and the proceedings were as straightforward and thorough as you would expect.

While this appears to be a case where much of F1's fanbase wanted the decision to stand, the court itself appeared a neutral enough environment.

Until the full verdict is released, it is only possible to infer the reasons from what happened in the hearing, but the decision appears perfectly logical.

Red Bull argues it didn't exceed the fuel-flow limit, and it's very possible it didn't, but it was presumably not possible to prove that to the satisfaction of the five judges.

It at least had its day in court, its legal representatives Ali Malek QC and Michael Lazarus pursuing the case with vigour, but based on the evidence presented it was difficult to conclude with certainty that the rule had not been breached.

As far as transparency is concerned, in this case the FIA cannot be said not to have done the job right.