I was just wondering if someone knows the rules applying in following cases:

What happens if the advisory bodies recommend not to inscribe a nomination? Is an inscription by the committee still possible? What about nomination for reevaluation by the advisory bodies in another year?

What happens if the committee decides to reject the nomination as it is of no universal value? Can the nomination be resubmitted in another year?

There are quite a lot of examples where the WHC has overruled the advisory body (Including the Oryx reserve whcih IUCN took great pleasure in pointing out when the WHC decided to delist it!!). No doubt between us we could create a list but, concentrating for the moment on the other question - what if the WHC decides to reject as not being of universal value?
Well, perceived wisdom has it that this "the end" and a retry is not allowed - as a result there are a number of examples where a country withdraws at the very last minute a nomination it fears is going to fail in order to avoid a rejection by the WHC. A recent example was UK withdrawing Darwin at Down" in 2007. After a "revamp" it is intended that the proposal should be renominated in 2010.
But things are not as black and white as that . Time passes and views change -also the WHC sometimes "rejects" but leaves the door open for other approaches.
The following sites which eventually made it (or are up for consideration this year) might be of note
1982 Zanzibar - "Should not be considered further for inclusion". 18 years later in 2000 after a lot of work by various bodies it made it
1982 Hildesheim was rejected at the Bureau meeting but must have been withdrawn by the time of the WHC
1985 Coco Island - WHC recorded "Doesn't meet criteria" but it got in in 1997
1987 Ibiza Alta Vila - "would reconsider with new evidence"
1989 Ubeda/Baeza - Doesn't meet requirements
1989 Vigan - "Doesn't meet requirements"
1992 Macaquarie Island - Not of Universal significance" - suggestion of linking with NZ islands but eventually it wnt forward using different criteria
1992 Cidade Velha - "Doesn't justify and no protection" - yet it is up for consideration again this year after a lot of work and investment
1993 Cedars of Lebanon - rejected but would consider as part of a bigger site
1997 Vinales - Deosn't meet requiremtns (but could reconsider later as a Cultural Landscape
1998 Provins - The Bureau states "doesn't meet criteria - so France withdrew it and got it in later
1998 Tarraco - Bureau accepted the ICOMOS "no" so Spain withdrew it and got it in later
1998 Weimar - Bureau and ICOMOS said no but, by the time of the WHC it got accepted

Regarding examples of where the WHC has ignored recommendations of the Advisory Body. I knew I had seen it somewhere!
If you look at WHC-08/32.COM/9 ("Discussion of Outstanding Universal Value") at this link
http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/32COM/documents/

and then scroll through to Annex 2 which starts on the PDF page 37. There you will find a list of every inscription up to 2007 showing (where known/recorded) 3 columns
a. Criteria asked for by the State Party ("SP")
b. Criteria Recommended by the Advisory body ("AB")
c. Criteria inscribed (by the WHC)

Obviously any differences between the second and third columns highlight where the WHC didn't follow the Advisory Body recommendations.

Although it lists all inscriptions the Annex is in the ICOMOS part of the document and ICOMOS comments
"The criteria that ICOMOS has indicated in its written evaluation have been adopted by
the Committee in 96% of the cases. In 6% of the cases when ICOMOS had proposed nominations for deferral or referral back to State Party, the Committee has nevertheless decided to inscribe the property."

If you scroll on to the IUCN part of the document - Section 4.3 on page 75 lists all the occasions in the last 10 years where IUCN believe that the WHC didn't follow its recommendations. Look also at para 4.4 where IUCN says "I told you so..!!" re the Oryx Sanctuary.

Are there also cases in which the advisory bodies recommended a rejection and yet the committee decided to inscribe?

Another thing - perhaps we could consider a connection of sites first rejected and later inscribed.

note that the ground for rejection is based on the info supplied by the state party. hence, even rejected sites are given a second chance upon revising the nomination dossiers and supplying additional info. sometimes, even "tweaking" the nomination approach, just like in macquarie island. it was rejected as a natural site for its biological values, but gained world heritage status for its geological values.

Am I correct in thinking that there is no way of looking at Advisory Body (AB) reports which led to a rejection of a site or of a referral/deferral where the site is not subsequently inscribed by the WHC? It appears that the reports are only "put up" on the Web when sites are inscribed.

If this, as it seems, is the case it unfortunately deprives us of a view of what a clear and straight AB "rejection" looks like!! This is because the only chance we have of seeing even half way critical AB documents relates to those sites where the WHC inscribes a site despite a negative AB recommendation - and those which are available don't seem to have been clear "Rejections". Looking, for instance, at those for Aapravasi Ghat and Iwami Ginzan Silver Mine the AB recommended "deferral" rather than "rejection" -
Apravasi Ghat was proposed on Criteria iv + vi - the AB concluded that neither of these could be properly evaluated
Iwami Ginzan was nominated on Criteria ii, iii + vi - the AB concluded that NONE of these had been demonstrated. However it suggested that Crtierion iv (which had not been asked for) might be relevant after more research!
In the end Aapravasi Ghat was inscribed on vi only and Iwami on the orginal 3 requested. (The choice of criteria vi for Aapravasi was a particularly amazing one in that UNESCO's own guidelines warn against inscriptions based solely on that critierion!)
So - do the ABs actually "do" firm rejections? In each of the above cases the door for inscription was left slightly ajar despite them not even meeting the requirements for OUV and, in a strict interpetation of the terms asked for by Assif, the AB didn't recommend a "rejection". If it didn't do so then does it ever!