1.

Must Article 10(2)(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, (1) read in the context of recitals 6, 8 and 31 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that where, because some of the terms of a consumer credit agreement are deemed to be unfair, the annual percentage rate of charge stated by the creditor on conclusion of the agreement is higher than if it is assumed that the unfair contractual term is not binding, the creditor has failed to fulfil its obligation under that provision?

2.

Must Article 10(2)(k) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, read in the context of recitals 6, 8 and 31 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient to inform the consumer of how often, in what situations, and by what maximum percentage charges related to performance of the agreement may be increased, even if the consumer is unable to verify whether a particular situation arises and the charge may consequently be doubled?

3.

Must Article 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, read in the context of recitals 6, 8, 9 and 47 thereof, be interpreted as precluding national law which provides for only one penalty for failure to fulfil the obligation imposed on the creditor to provide information, irrespective of the degree of the failure to do so and the effect thereof on the consumer’s decision to conclude the credit agreement, where that penalty involves making the credit free of interest and charges?