1.

Must Article 3(3) [of Directive 93/13] (1) and point 1(j) of the annex thereto entitled ‘Terms referred to in Article 3(3)’ be interpreted as permitting a provision under which the seller or supplier may alter the terms of the contract unilaterally where a term is laid down, including in general conditions, for indexation of the price of services agreed with the consumer in accordance with the average consumer price index for the previous year published by a public authority, in so far as that the indexation only follows an upward progression?

2.

Must the term ‘contractual terms’ in Article 2(a) of Directive 93/13 be interpreted as meaning specific wording of the contract or is it to be construed as referring to all the legal effects of parts of the wording of the contract, even if they are not in the same separate part of the document?

3.

For the purposes of determining unfairness, must each of the negotiated contractual terms relating to the consequences of non-performance be examined individually or must their cumulative effect as part of the package of services be construed as a whole as one term which is to be regarded under the point 1(e) of the annex to Directive 93/13 entitled ‘Terms referred to in Article 3(3)’ as a term ‘which [has] the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation’ and, if some of those terms are unfair, must they be excluded in their entirety?

4.

Must Article 4 of Directive 93/13 be interpreted as permitting a provision under which the seller or supplier can fix the terms relating to compensation in proportion to a standard amount (excluding contractually agreed discounts, which also include recompense for part of the amount of discounts on subscription contracts and on the market prices of the terminal equipment purchased or leased), or must Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 be interpreted as permitting a provision under which a term relating to liability for non-performance of the contract, which provides that the consumer is to pay compensation and bear costs which are manifestly disproportionate to the service provided as counter-performance and to the condition under which liability for non-performance of the contract is satisfied (automatically and without prior notice, with the corresponding interest and recovery costs), may be deemed unfair?

5.

Can a court settlement between the mobile telephone operator and a qualified entity within the meaning of that directive, such as the Komisia za zashtita na potrebitelite (Consumer Protection Commission, Bulgaria), produce effects for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of Directive 2020/1828, (2) in conjunction with Article 7(4)(a) thereof, and, if so, is such an agreement also binding on other courts (including any court called upon to rule on a legal relationship between the mobile telephone operator and an individual consumer) if, for the reasons set out in Case C-600/19, (3) the court did not examine the unfairness or otherwise of the terms when approving the settlement?