I don't understand you people. Is it
EMI fault you don't read terms and conditions and fees description?
I think it's very clearly stated on their website - 900 euros is just for Application review:
Business Account Pricing
@Konstanz - You have provided invaluable knowledge on many posts, so I'll answer this as a courtesy to explain why Textualism should apply and when the opposing party, e.g.
Bankera, claims they apply arbitrary Purposivism, we should take note, and as Justice Scalia once quipped "bounce".
Still,
@csp dubai should have asked us here, but went at it alone. I feel REALLY bad for
@csp dubai because NOBODY should be giving €900 to anyone for NOTHING in return. Let's face it:
It's NOT like the world is looking for a bunch of undeserving people to reward with €900. 
The narrow legal issue here is the €900 and the words accompanying it. Juxtaposing the two images we get... The first image to the left is the original Bankera Premium info. The second image, the one to the right, is one Bankera could easily face in court with an accusation of lying by omission. Follow me here...
Hashing is based on the idea that
if two strings are equal, they should have the same hash value. Therefore, to compare two strings, you can actually compare their hashes, instead of comparing each character. This saves time and space, especially if the strings are long or have a fixed length.
Now applying canons on interpretation:
(1) Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est. Nothing is to be added to what the text states or reasonably implies. That is, a matter NOT COVERED, is to be treated as NOT covered. The interpreter must NOT read by way of creation, policy preferences, or politics. It is NOT his function or within his power to change, enlarge, or even improve the law/written text. The search for what the drafter (i.e. Bankera) "would have wanted" is invariably either a deception or a delusion. In this case, the drafter, BANKERA, FAILED TO mention the word NON-REFUNDABLE. Bankera and its drafters knew/are familiar with the word "NON-REFUNDABLE". It's a word they use in EVERY one of their emails to tell "victims" that their €900 is NON-REFUNDABLE. So, WHY exclude it from the initial "entrance"? What happened to the
fair warning doctrine?
The principle that a matter NOT covered is NOT covered is so obvious that it feels (seems) ABSURD to recite it.
(2)
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one thing implies the EXCLUSION of others.
(3)
Verba cum effectu sunt accipienda. Words are to be taken as having effect. If possible, every word and every provision is to be given effect. None should be ignored. None should needlessly be given an interpretation that causes it to duplicate another provision or to have no consequence. "These words cannot be meaningless, else they would not have been used." United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1,65 (1936) (per Roberts, J.).
(4)
The Doctrine of Contra Proferentem... Against the offeror; Against the Drafter: Contra proferentem is a Latin term that means "against the offeror". It is a rule of contract law that interprets ambiguous clauses or terms against the interests of the party who drafted or requested them. It is often applied to situations involving standardized contracts or unequal bargaining power, but can also be used in other cases. It can be invoked when a contract is challenged in court.
Contra proferentem is codified in the UK's Consumer Rights Act 2015,
s 69.
Section 69 should be a familiar provision to English lawyers because contra proferentem is a general rule of construction in English law. According to this rule any ambiguity in a term must be resolved against the party who is relying upon it. In so far as section 69(1) provides that the consumer must be given the benefit of any doubt about the meaning of a written term, it would appear to be no more than a statutory form of the contra proferentem rule.
Ewan McKendrick,
Contract Law Text, Cases, and Materials (10th ed 2022, Oxford University Press), page 461.
8.10 Notice finally that, although contra proferentem is a common law rule, an equivalent principle is embodied in s 69(1) of the CRA that ‘if a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail’ (see para 8.66).
Janet O'Sullivan,
O'Sullivan & Hilliard's The Law of Contract (10th ed 2022 Oxford University Press), page 202, para. 8.10.
(5)
Fair warning doctrine (in contract cases): In this particular case, the fair warning doctrine refers to the requirement that warnings are defined clearly with enough accuracy so as to enable a reasonable person to know what conduct is prohibited and what is allowed, and so that a reasonably skilled lawyer or "knowledgeable" expert can predict what conduct falls within the text's scope. The vagueness doctrine generally requires that words be precise enough to give fair warning to actors that contemplated conduct is outside the scope of the text, and to provide adequate standards to enforcement agencies, factfinders, and reviewing courts.
(6) Ad nauseam...
I'm sure by now you get my point.
PS. As I mentioned before, if Bankera is an advertiser on OCT, I will NOT engage in anything that can harm their business. Their services, unlike taxes, aren't forced upon anyone, but they should take notice and add the word
NON-REFUNDABLE to their site to avoid nasty, costly, and litigious court cases.
Those who labor in the fields as arbiters of justice and truth ALSO do NOT have what is required to make such difficult decisions. There is one way to deal with them, but frankly, I don't think most people are cut out for this type of "solution" 
