The applicant has obtained an attachment and transfer order from the court of decision based on a European order for payment, which was issued by the Court of general jurisdiction Rome. The order for payment was served on the defendant. The Court of general jurisdiction Rome has attested that that there was no record of any review proceeding against this order to be found in the docket of the last few months. Subsequently, the defendant proved that he applied for a review according to Art. 20 EPO and that this application arrived at the Court of general jurisdiction Rome in time. In his application, the defendant states that the order must not have been In his application, the defendant invokes the fact that he lodged a review in time against the order for payment, whereupon this order should not have been declared enforceable. He also states that the fact of the timely filing of the opposition results from the electronic register of the court in Rome. There, it should appear that the objection had been forwarded. With regard to Art. 20 EPO, the defendant requests the suspension of enforcement in accordance with Art. 23 lit. c EPO; in the alternative, he raises a complaint (Erinnerung) according to § 766 ZPO. The application is successful. The court examines the conditions for lodging a statement of opposition in accordance with Art. 16 and 17 EPO. The entry in the electronic register of the Court in Rome, which was followed by a confirmation of receipt of the opposition, indicated that the court considered the letter received as an objection. Although it could not be determined with certainty whether the Court might not have declared the application inadmissible or unfounded for other reasons, an application under Art. 20 EPO did not appear hopeless from the outset. In this situation, taking into account the applicant’s and the defendant’s interests, the suspension of the enforcement proceedings appeared appropriate.