On application, the AG Wedding issued a European order for payment. More than a year later, the defendant requested a review of the order for payment according to Art. 20 EPO. She also requests to suspend the enforcement in the interim according to §§ 1095, 707 ZPO. The applicant argues, among other reasons, that the European order for payment has not been served by a bailiff – as required by French law. The court subsequently comments on the question of the valid remedy where the order for payment was not served to the defendant or not effectively served on him in reference to the CJEU’s decision of the 4th September 2014, C-119/13 and C-120/13: Where the order for payment was declared enforceable but not served to the defendant or not effectively served on him, he can raise a complaint (Klauselerinnerung) analogous to § 11(1) RPflG and § 732 ZPO. It was to be considered as unproblematic if the defendant had not filed an application according to § 732 ZPO, but an application according to Art. 20 EPO and an application for interim measures according to § 707 ZPO. These applications could be interpreted according to the defendant’s aims in the present case without any problems. The defendant’s remedy was successful. She had shown that a European order for payment could not be served as a registered letter with return receipt according to French law but had to be served by a bailiff. Art. 13, 14 EPO said that the service of documents had to be served on the defendant in accordance with the national law of the State – in the present case France – in which service was to be effected. Thus, the application was successful and the enforcement was to be suspended in the interim.