1.

Is an interpretation of Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/24 (1) which entails the recognition in a host Member State of the effects of a decision by the competent administrative authority of the home Member State which has not been published in the manner required by Article 6(1) to (4) of Directive 2001/24 compatible with the fundamental right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the general principle of legal certainty and the principle of equality and the prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of nationality under Article 21(2) of the Charter?

2.

Is an interpretation of Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/24 which entails the recognition in a host Member State of the effects of a decision by the competent administrative authority of the home Member State which excluded certain obligations and responsibilities from the transfer to a ‘bridge bank’ of the ordinary business and a number of the assets and liabilities of the bank to which the reorganisation measures apply compatible with the fundamental right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter and the general principle of legal certainty, where the subsequent conduct of the ‘bridge bank’, acting under the control of a public authority applying EU law, itself created among customers in the host Member State a legitimate expectation that the ‘bridge bank’ had assumed the liabilities corresponding to the responsibilities and obligations which the bank forming the subject of the reorganisation measure held in relation to those customers?

3.

Is an interpretation of Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/24 which entails the recognition in a host Member State of the effects of a decision of the competent administrative authority of the home Member State which transfers to a ‘bridge bank’ the creditor position under the contractual relationships entered into by the bank forming the subject of the reorganisation measures but leaves with the failing bank the obligation to reimburse to the customer the sums paid by the latter under contracts annulled because of an error of consent brought about by insufficient information provided by the bank compatible with the fundamental right to property under Article 17 of the Charter, the principle of a high level of consumer protection under Article 38 of the Charter and the general principle of legal certainty?