����AV

The contested decision fell within the Administration’s margin of appreciation and was a reasonable exercise of discretion. Under the applicable legal framework, the Applicant is not entitled to force the Administration to investigate her complaint. To the contrary, the responsible official is provided with a discretion to initiate or not to initiate an investigation under the applicable legal framework. The decisionmaker reasonably decided not to investigate the Applicant’s complaint in light of the alleged harasser’s resignation. The decision was also procedurally compliant as the decisionmaker notified the Applicant of the decision in about three months as required by the applicable legal framework. The Applicant was not entitled to monetary or other compensation under the applicable legal framework as there was no finding of misconduct. The contested decision in this case was the closure of the Applicant’s complaint following a preliminary assessment, and while a term “informal resolution” used in the notification of the contested decision might have caused some confusion, the Respondent had no obligation to respond to the Applicant’s “informal resolution” offer or otherwise compensate her for harm she reportedly suffered. Furthermore, the Tribunal cannot award any compensation for harm either since there is no finding of an illegality relating to the contested decision. The judgments cited by the Applicant are distinguishable from the Applicant’s case since in the judgments relied upon by the Applicant, there was a finding of an unlawful act (e.g. harassment) that caused harm to the applicant, which is absent in the present case. Therefore, the contested decision was lawful.