As to whether the appellant’s criticisms are well founded, consideration must first be given to those made in regard to paragraph 136 of the judgment under appeal, in which the Court of First Instance, having concluded that the argument in question was inadmissible on the basis that the appellant had failed to establish an interest in bringing proceedings, held that, in any event, the introduction of a minimum correction coefficient of 100% cannot be characterised as manifestly arbitrary or inappropriate, since that rule was adopted in order to bring the transitional arrangements protecting the correction coefficients applicable to pensions as far as possible into line with the definitive rules, which abolish them.
Apellandipoolse kriitika põhjendatuse osas tuleb kõigepealt uurida vastuväiteid vaidlustatud kohtuotsuse punktile 136, millega Esimese Astme Kohus – olles eelnevalt leidnud, et kõnesolev argument on vastuvõetamatu apellandi menetluse algatamise huvi puudumise tõttu – otsustas, et 100% minimaalse paranduskoefitsiendi kehtestamist ei saa mingil juhul kvalifitseerida kui ilmselgelt omavolilist või ebasobivat, arvestades, et selle reegli eesmärk oli lähendada üleminekukorda, mis pensionidele kohaldatavad paranduskoefitsiendid säilitab, nii palju kui võimalik lõplikule korrale, mis need kaotab.