1.

Is Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that costs in respect of ancillary services agreed in connection with a consumer credit agreement, such as fees for the possibility of deferring and reducing instalments, constitute part of the annual percentage rate of charge for the credit?

2.

Is Article 10(2)(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that an incorrect indication of the annual percentage rate of charge in a credit agreement between a trader and a consumer borrower must be regarded as a failure to indicate the annual percentage rate of charge in the credit agreement and the national court must apply the consequences provided for in national law for failure to indicate the annual percentage rate of charge in a consumer agreement?

3.

Is Article [23] of Directive 2008/48/EC to be interpreted as meaning that a penalty provided for in national law, in the form of the nullity of the consumer credit agreement, whereby only the principal amount granted is to be repaid, is proportionate where the annual percentage rate of charge is not accurately indicated in the consumer credit agreement?

4.

Is Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 93/13/EEC (2) to be interpreted as meaning that a fee for a package of ancillary services provided for in a supplementary agreement to a consumer credit agreement, which has been concluded separately and in addition to the main agreement, must be regarded as part of the main subject matter of the agreement and cannot therefore be the subject matter of the assessment of unfairness?

5.

Is Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC read in conjunction with point 1(o) of the annex to that directive to be interpreted as meaning that a term in an agreement on ancillary services relating to consumer credit is unfair if it grants the consumer the abstract possibility of deferring and rescheduling payments, in respect of which that consumer owes fees even if he or she does not make use of it?

6.

Are Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 and the principle of effectiveness to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a legal provision whereby the consumer may be made to bear part of the costs of the proceedings in the following cases: (1) where a claim for a declaration that sums are not owed by reason of the established unfairness of a term is upheld in part […]; (2) where it is practically impossible or excessively difficult for the consumer, in the exercise of his or her rights, to specify the amount of the claim; (3) in all cases where an unfair term is present, including in cases where the presence of the unfair term does not directly affect, either in whole or in part, the amount of the creditor’s claim, or where the term has no direct connection with the subject matter of the proceedings?