F. Scale of contributions 1984-85 (1982-83 Scale shown for comparative purposes)
|Antigua and Barbuda c/||0.01||-|
|Central African Republic||0.01||0.01|
|Democratic People's Republic of Korea d/||0.06||0.06|
|Germany, Federal Republic of||10.31||10.16|
|Korea, Republic of d/||0.22||0.18|
|Papua New Guinea||0.01||0.01|
|Saint Christopher and Nevis c/ e/||0.01||-|
|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines||0.01||0.01|
|Sao Tome and Principe||0.01||0.01|
|Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of||1.04||0.71|
|Trinidad and Tobago||0.04||0.04|
|United Arab Emirates||0.19||0.12|
|United States of America||25.00||25.00|
|Yemen Arab Republic||0.01||0.01|
|Yemen, People's Democratic Republic of||0.01||0.01|
a/ Derived directly from the UN Scale of Assessments for 1983-85 as adopted by General Assembly Resolution 37/125 of 17 December 1982, plus new member.
b/ Derived directly from the UN Scale of Assessments for 1980-82 as adopted by General Assembly Resolution 34/6A of 25 October 1979.
c/ New member admitted at the Twenty-second Session of the Conference, November 1983.
d/ The contribution rates of these members of FAO, which are not members of the UN, are derived from the percentage rates at which they are called upon by the UN to contribute to certain UN activities.
e/ The Secretariat of the UN Committee on Contributions advised that the "theoretical probable" rates of these Members of FAO would be the minimum rate, i.e. 0.01 percent.
G. Immunities of the organization
2. In view of the significant administrative and financial implications that the landlords' claims might have for FAO, the Finance Committee was informed of the situation at its Fortieth Session in 1977 and, since then, had been kept informed of developments.
3. When the actions were brought against the Organization, the Italian Permanent Representation was requested by FAO to bring FAO's immunity from every form of legal process, provided for in Section 16 of the Headquarters Agreement, to the attention of the judicial authorities concerned. However, since it appeared that the Italian courts would nevertheless proceed with their hearing of the actions, the question arose whether for the sole purpose of invoking and having recognized its immunity from all forms of legal process, FAO should put in an appearance in the proceedings. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs advised the Organization in writing to do so. Accordingly, FAO retained an Italian lawyer who pleaded the Organization's immunity from legal process and drew the attention of the courts to the fact that such immunity did not lead to a denial of justice, since the dispute could be settled by arbitration as provided for in the lease.
4. In the proceedings relating to the Organization's eviction from Building F. the Tribunale Civile di Roma held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case. As the Organization's immunity from legal process had clearly not been recognized, in March 1981, the Organization referred the question of immunity to the Corte di Cassazione - the supreme judicial authority in Italy - for a ruling. In the meantime, the two actions brought by the landlords were suspended in the lower courts.
5. It appeared prudent to envisage the practical and financial situation that might arise if the Corte di Cassazione decided that FAO did not enjoy immunity from legal process with respect to actions arising out of the lease. Consequently, the matter was submitted to the Finance Committee, which considered the administrative and financial implications of the litigation, and to the CCLM which examined the legal issues, in particular the interpretation of Section 16 of the Headquarters Agreement.
6. Both the Finance Committee and the CCLM, at sessions held in Autumn 1982, expressed serious concern at the situation that might arise if the Corte di Cassazione did not fully recognize the Organization's immunity from all forms of legal process laid down in Section 16 of the Headquarters Agreement. Such immunity was recognized as being an important safeguard for the smooth and independent administration of the Organization and an essential feature of its legal status in Italy.
7. In addition, the CCLM considered that Section 16 of the Headquarters Agreement was unambiguous and that the phrase "immunity from every form of legal process" should be given its full literal meaning, so that FAO would only be subject to the jurisdiction of the Italian courts if it had expressly waived its immunity. Therefore, the CCLM recommended that, if FAO's immunity were not fully recognized, action should be taken by the Host Government to find a way of resolving the problem that had arisen with the landlords without further recourse to the Italian courts and, more generally, to safeguard FAO's immunity in the future.
8. In October 1982, the Corte di Cassazione's judgment became available. That court held that FAO did not enjoy immunity from legal process in one of the actions brought against it under the lease; and this in very broad terms which implied that most types of transactions that the Organization might enter into in Italy would be subject to review by the Italian courts.
9. Since then, the Council considered the question of FAO's immunity in detail, at its Eighty-second (November-December 1982), Eighty-third (June 1983) and Eighty-fourth (November 1983) Sessions and adopted resolutions on this matter at its Eighty-second and Eighty-third Sessions. In Resolution 3/83 adopted at its Eighty-third Session, the Council urged the Host Government, inter alia, to ensure that no measures of execution were applied against FAO and that its assets were not frozen; to ensure that Sections 16 and 17 of the Headquarters Agreement were respected; to take the necessary action with a view to the settlement of the dispute with the landlords of Building F without further recourse to the Italian courts; and to take expeditious measures to ensure that in future FAO would be immune from all forms of legal process before the Italian courts.
10. At its Eighty-fourth Session, the Council found that little progress had been made to give effect to the resolutions it had adopted at its Eighty-second and Eighty-third Sessions. The Council however welcomed the declaration by the Representative of the Host Government that the Italian authorities were considering the possibility of amending the legislation applicable to the immunity from measures of execution of State property and the property of intergovernmental organizations and his renewed assurances that the Government would ensure that FAO's immunity from measures of execution was respected. The Council therefore hoped that contacts which the Director-General had recently had with the new Minister of Foreign Affairs would lead to concrete measures being taken by the Host Government.
11. The Conference was also informed that, in addition to the two cases arising out of the lease of Building F. four other actions had recently been brought against FAO. In two of these actions, in which FAO had not waived its immunity, the courts had rendered judgments in favour of the plaintiff. As far as the landlord's actions were concerned, the Italian courts had ruled that there were no grounds to evict FAO. from Building F. while a judgment on the merits of the action relating to the retroactive increases in rent was expected shortly.