Secondly, contrary to what the appellant submits, the Court of First Instance did not, at paragraphs 36 and 37 of the contested judgment, reach conclusions that were unsupported by evidence, but carried out an appraisal of the evidence, based in particular on the consideration of the torches in question, which were produced before it.
En second lieu, contrairement à ce que soutient la requérante, le Tribunal n’a pas, aux points 36 et 37 de l’arrêt attaqué, formulé des affirmations non étayées par des constatations de fait, mais s’est livré à des appréciations de nature factuelle, fondées notamment sur l’examen des lampes de poche en cause, qui ont été produites devant lui.