موعد صدور نظر مشورتی دیوان در خصوص درخواست صندوق بین المللی توسعه کشاورزی

“I. Was the ILOAT competent, under Article II of its Statute, to hear the complaint introduced against the International Fund for Agricultural Development (hereby the Fund) on 8 July 2008 by Ms A.T.S.G., an individual who was a member of the staff of the Global Mechanism of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa (hereby the Convention) for which the Fund acts merely as housing organization?

II. Given that the record shows that the parties to the dispute underlying the ILOAT’s Judgment No. 2867 were in agreement that the Fund and the Global Mechanism are separate legal entities and that the Complainant was a member of the staff of the Global Mechanism, and considering all the relevant documents, rules and principles, was the ILOAT’s statement, made in support of its decision confirming its jurisdiction, that ‘the Global Mechanism is to be assimilated to the various administrative units of the Fund for all administrative purposes’ and that the ‘effect of this is that administrative decisions taken by the Managing Director in relation to staff in the Global Mechanism are, in law, decisions of the Fund’ outside its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?

III. Was the ILOAT’s general statement, made in support of its decision confirming its jurisdiction, that ‘the personnel of the Global Mechanism are staff members of the Fund’ outside its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?

IV. Was the ILOAT’s decision confirming its jurisdiction to entertain the Complainant’s plea alleging an abuse of authority by the Global Mechanism’s Managing Director outside its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?

V. Was the ILOAT’s decision confirming its jurisdiction to entertain the Complainant’s plea that the Managing Director’s decision not to renew the

Complainant’s contract constituted an error of law outside its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?

VI. Was the ILOAT’s decision confirming its jurisdiction to interpret the Memorandum of Understanding between the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa and IFAD (hereby the MoU), the Convention, and the Agreement Establishing IFAD beyond its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?

VII. Was the ILOAT’s decision confirming its jurisdiction to determine that by discharging an intermediary and supporting role under the MoU, the President was acting on behalf of IFAD outside its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?

VIII. Was the ILOAT’s decision confirming its jurisdiction to substitute the discretionary decision of the Managing Director of the Global Mechanism with its own outside its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?

IX. What is the validity of the decision given by the ILOAT in its Judgment No. 2867?”