This article shows that there is a lack of consistency in the interpretation of the meaning and scope of the obligation of traders to provide transparent pre-contractual and contractual information on consumer credit to consumers in EU law. On the basis of an analysis of transparency requirements prescribed by the Unfair Contract Terms Directive and the Consumer Credit Directive, differences in the understanding of transparency are highlighted. While the transparency test under the Unfair Contract Terms Directive focuses on the question of comprehensibility of credit information, the transparency test under the Consumer Credit Directive focuses on the format, position, length and font size of information. Consequently, the transparency of the same information provided in the course of concluding a consumer credit agreement could be evaluated differently on the basis of these two directives. This lack of consistency in the interpretation of transparency might pose a particular problem for national enforcement authorities. In the example of Croatia, it is demonstrated that the lack of guidance and consistency in the interpretation of various transparency requirements in the area of consumer credit at the EU level leaves space for national enforcement authorities to develop their own understanding of transparency. Where national enforcement authorities develop a narrower approach to transparency, consumers can be deprived of the protection guaranteed by EU law. In areas such as consumer credit, where the obligation of the transparent provision of information is the main tool of consumer protection and market integration, ensuring greater consistency in the interpretation of the content of this obligation is the key to ensuring its effectiveness.

中文翻译：

---

消费者信贷协议中（合同前）合同信息的透明度：一致性是缺少的关键吗？

本文表明，在欧盟法律中，交易者在向消费者提供有关消费者信贷的透明的合同前和合同信息的义务的含义和范围的解释上缺乏一致性。在对《不公平合同条款指令》和《消费者信贷指令》规定的透明度要求进行分析的基础上，强调了对透明度的理解上的差异。不公平合同条款指令下的透明度测试侧重于信用信息的可理解性问题，而消费者信用指令下的透明度测试则侧重于信息的格式，位置，长度和字体大小。所以，在订立消费者信贷协议的过程中提供的相同信息的透明度可以根据这两个指令进行不同评估。透明度解释缺乏一致性可能会给国家执法部门带来特殊问题。在克罗地亚的例子中，事实证明，在欧盟一级的消费者信贷领域，对各种透明度要求的解释缺乏指导性和连贯性，这为国家执法部门发展自己对透明度的理解提供了空间。如果国家执法机构对透明度采取更狭义的方法，则可能会剥夺消费者获得欧盟法律所保障的保护。在消费者信贷等领域，