1999 Statistics of the Dutch National Court of Appeal

A chronicle of last year's motor sport case law in the Netherlands.

During 1999 drivers brought 14 appeals to the Courts, diversified as follows:

Dutch Touring Car Championship : 3
Alfa 156 Challenge.......................: 4
National Super Car Cup............... : 1
Rally.............................................: 1
Autocross.................................... : 1
Karting......................................... : 4


Executive summary of the DTCC appeals:

The DTCC experienced a relatively smooth 1999, at least compared to the quite hectic 1998 Championship. Only 3 drivers/teams appealed against a sentence pronounced on them by the Stewards of the Meeting.

The first case dealt with an exclusion of a BMW driver due to technical non-conformity as reported by the Scrutineers. The dimensions and weight of the bonnet of the car were allegedly not complying with the homologation forms.The team appealed because of formal errors during the scrutineering, during the hearing by the Stewards (art. 153, 174 and 175 CSI) and during safe-keeping of the seized bonnet.
As a consequence of these procedural errors, the Court ruled that the Stewards' decision of exclusion was nullified.

The second case dealt with overtaking during a yellow flag situation. As we all know, overtaking is strictly forbidden if a marshal shows a yellow flag. The driver involved was punished by a 15 seconds time penalty, but a competing team challenged this decision by the Stewards as being too lenient. According to the team who brought the appeal, that driver should have been excluded according to art. 16 of the Dutch motorsport code.
The Court decided that said art. 16 was overruled by the discretionary powers as awarded to the Stewards in art. 141 of the CSI. The Stewards may inflict a time penalty as they deem fit. Given the rainy circumstances and the fact the yellow flag was shown unexpectedly during the first round, the imposed time penalty was considered to be reasonable.
The appeal was denied.

The third case was very interesting from a motorsportlaw perspective. Two drivers were leading the Championship with same points. During the top event of the year, a BMW driver -coming out of a 180 degree curve, the so-called the Tarzan curve- collided with his Renault colleague who was driving in front of him. This happened during the final round of the event. The Renault driver brought a protest because he claimed that he was hit deliberately by his fellow competitor.
The Stewards decided to punish the BMW driver with a 30 seconds time penalty, because of violation of art. 2b of the Special Regulation relating to Driving Conduct (reckless driving).
The BMW driver did not file a protest against the Renault driver. In stead, he brought an appeal to the Court requesting annulment of the decision of the Stewards. The BMW driver complained that the crash was caused by the blocking Renault driver. The plaintiff's punishment was too severe.
The Renault driver appealed as well, claiming that his protest was fully and unconditional awarded by the Stewards, so logically speaking, the BMW driver should have been punished for crashing by intent. This is a violation of art. 2c (so not 2b) of said Special Regulation which is penalised by exclusion and disciplinary actions.
Both parties presented video material, expert witnesses and data logging to convince the Court. Based on this material and the pleas by the respective motorsport lawyers before the Court, the Court ruled that the willful intent by the BMW driver not to prevent a collision with his colleague was proven, because:

  • he did not undertake every measure possible to prevent the crash, such as lifting, breaking or avoiding;
  • his front wheels did not show any attempt to avoid a collision;
  • it was not a one-time incident. He touched his colleague more than once during the final phase of the race;
  • the crash in the Tarzan curve happened during the final round the race;

    The Court ruled to exclude the BMW driver. The Championchip was back on track: both drivers had again same points. But in fact, Renault lost 3 valuable points.


    • Please note: this info is meant for educational and demonstrative purposes only. Review this legal information with your motor sports attorney before using them in your particular situation.
    Motorsportlaw.org makes no warranties, express or implied regarding the use or legal enforceability of the legal information listed on this site.