34It is settled case-law that the wording used in one language version of a provision of EU law cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision, or be made to override the other language versions in that regard. Such an approach would be incompatible with the requirement for uniform application of EU law. Where there is divergence between the various language versions, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (judgments of 25 March 2010, Helmut Müller, C‑451/08, EU:C:2010:168, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited, and of 21 March 2024, Cobult, C‑76/23, EU:C:2024:253, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited).