Mercedes have asked governing body the FIA for a right of review of the result of the Monaco Grand Prix.
Mercedes driver George Russell was one of several drivers affected by pit-lane speeding penalties which their teams believe were incorrect.
Alpine have won a right of review case over their driver Pierre Gasly, who had been demoted to seventh place after the race by two five-second penalties for exceeding the pit-lane speed limit.
On Friday, it was announced that Gasly was being returned to third place in the race following a successful appeal by his Alpine team.
The stewards’ verdict revealed an error with measuring the pit-lane speed limit. This affected five drivers in total.
Among them was Russell who was dropped from third place at the time to 12th as he was given a drive-through penalty for failing to properly serve his pit-lane speeding penalty.
This cost Russell 15 points in his title fight with team-mate Kimi Antonelli, who won the race.
The right of review hearing requested by Alpine established that cars could legally drive a shorter distance in the pit lane than officials had used in their calculations.
As the limit is measured by the time it takes for drivers to travel a certain distance, it incorrectly calculated drivers as speeding when in fact none had exceeded the 60km/h limit.
A right of review requires a team to prove there is new evidence that was not considered at the time of the original penalty – which was accepted in Alpine’s case.
Mercedes argue that the pit lane measurement being incorrect as well as the stewards’ decision to overturn the penalty are new evidence.
Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff said on Sunday: “We just simply want to sit on the table when decisions are being made.” He said he believed their case was “a long shot”.
In a separate interview, he told Sky Sports: “I’m not sure this is going to hold with the judges but we have to do it for George’s benefit.”
McLaren’s Oscar Piastri, who also received a penalty which demoted him below Gasly, said he was “mind-blown” by the decision in the Frenchman’s case.