32Concerning the assessment of the Courts of the European Union as to whether an act of an institution is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, it must be stated that, in order to establish that that institution committed a manifest error in assessing complex facts so as to justify the annulment of that act, the evidence adduced by the applicant must be sufficient to make the factual assessments used in the act implausible (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 December 1996 in AIUFFASS and AKT v Commission, T‑380/94, ECR, EU:T:1996:195, paragraph 59, and 28 February 2012 in Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung v Commission, T‑282/08, EU:T:2012:91, paragraph 158). Subject to that review of plausibility, it is not the Court’s role to substitute its assessment of complex facts for that made by the institution which adopted the decision (judgments in Enviro Tech (Europe), cited in paragraph 31 above, EU:C:2009:635, paragraph 47, and of 12 February 2008 in BUPA and Others v Commission, T‑289/03, ECR, EU:T:2008:29, paragraph 221).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.