43In accordance with settled case-law, where there is divergence between the language versions of an EU legislative text, that provision must be interpreted by reference to the general scheme and the purpose of the rules of which it forms part (judgments of 27 March 1990, Cricket St Thomas, C‑372/88, EU:C:1990:140, paragraph 19, and of 8 May 2025, Pielatak, C‑410/23, EU:C:2025:325, paragraph 58 and the case-law cited). In addition, where a provision of EU law is open to several interpretations, preference must be given to that interpretation which ensures that the provision retains its effectiveness (judgments of 24 February 2000, Commission v France, C‑434/97, EU:C:2000:98, paragraph 21, and of 23 November 2023, EVN Business Service and Others, C‑480/22, EU:C:2023:918, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.