¹ú²úAV

The only issue for consideration by the Tribunal is the adequacy of compensation granted by the Secretary-General to the applicant. The applicant alleged that if the selection process had been lawful, he would have been selected to the post and that the compensation granted did not take into account the decrease in his pension benefits. In order to obtain compensation, it is not enough for an applicant to determine that a procedural irregularity was committed; he should also establish that this irregularity caused him a direct prejudice. Therefore, the applicant should demonstrate that he had serious chances to be selected to the post. In the case at hand, after a review of all applications, five candidates, including the applicant, were short-listed for an interview. After the interviews, four candidates, including the applicant, were found to meet the full requirements of the post. Since the Secretary-General had recognized that the selected candidate was unlawfully chosen, there remained only three candidates who fulfilled the requirements of the post. Therefore, the applicant had only one chance out of three to be selected to the post. In respect to the financial prejudice suffered by the applicant, this corresponds to, on the one hand, the additional salary that he would have received for one year before his retirement and on the other hand, the decrease in his pension benefits resulting from his non-selection. The Tribunal found that the compensation granted by the Secretary-General to the applicant was adequate for the prejudice he suffered. Outcome: The application is rejected.