The European Order for Payment Regulation was adopted in 2006 to solve a problem: across the EU, creditors were losing legitimate cross-border claims not because their claims were wrong, but because pursuing them through the ordinary courts of a foreign Member State was prohibitively expensive and procedurally impenetrable. Its promise was: if your claim is uncontested, you will get an enforceable title quickly, and that title will be recognised and enforced across the EU. That promise is what I relied upon. That promise has been broken — and the breaking of it has consequences that extend far beyond my case. What happened to me is a demonstration of a structural vulnerability in how the EOP Regulation is applied in Germany. A debtor who did not contest the order within the prescribed time limit, who failed seven successive review applications, and whose eighth attempt was filed three days late through an unauthorised signatory without a valid electronic signature using a national remedy that the same court had ruled inapplicable in its own prior decision — that debtor nevertheless succeeded in annulling a final, enforceable EPO. He did so through a purely national German procedural route that the CJEU had already prohibited in Case C-245/14. The court that admitted his application knew of that prohibition. It applied the remedy anyway. Every appellate court confirmed the outcome. If this is possible in Germany — if a final EPO can be annulled in this way, at this stage, after this many proceedings — then every creditor who obtains a EPO against a German-domiciled debtor faces the same risk. The order they obtained in good faith, the title they paid for, the enforcement they planned for — all of it can be undone through a national procedural mechanism that EU law expressly prohibits. The scale of this problem demands attention now. The EOP Regulation is used extensively by creditors across the EU to recover debts from German debtors. According to European Commission data, tens of thousands of European Orders for Payment are processed annually across Member States. Germany's courts handle a significant share of those orders. If German courts permit — and appellate courts confirm — the use of §321a ZPO to reopen final EPOs, every one of those orders is potentially vulnerable to the same treatment. The legal certainty that the Regulation was designed to create does not exist in Germany in any meaningful sense, because finality under Article 20(3) of the Regulation can be circumvented through a domestic procedural detour that EU law forbids.The urgency is compounded by the complete absence of any corrective mechanism within the German legal system. The Amtsgericht Wedding has been silent for twelve months on a substantive application. The Landgericht dismissed the appeal without engaging with the EU law arguments. The Bundesgerichtshof confirmed there is no further federal court remedy. Not one court in this chain was willing to refer the plainly relevant EU law questions to the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU, despite explicit written requests.The only institutions with both the competence and the tools to address the EU law dimension are the European Commission — as guardian of the Treaties — and the European Parliament, acting through its petition function. Every day that German courts operate under the assumption that §321a ZPO can override a final EPO is a day in which other creditors may be exposed to the same outcome. They obtained their orders in good faith. They have no reason to expect that a final, court-confirmed title can be undone years later through a national procedural route the EU Regulation prohibits.The Commission's infringement procedure under Article 258 TFEU takes time. The sooner it is initiated, the sooner a CJEU judgment can clarify, once and for all and with binding effect across all twenty-seven Member States, that Article 20(3) of the EOP Regulation means what it says: that a final EPO is final, and that no national supplementary remedy can reopen it. That clarity will benefit not just future cases but the entire cross-border enforcement framework that the EU has spent two decades building. The EU's credibility as a legal order depends on the uniform application of its Regulations. A Regulation that is applied rigorously in some Member States and circumvented through domestic procedural innovation in others is not a Regulation in any meaningful sense — it is a suggestion. The EOP Regulation is directly applicable law. If one Member State's courts can neutralise those rights through domestic procedures that EU law prohibits, without consequence, without correction, and without referral to the Court of Justice, then the primacy of EU law — the foundational principle of the entire European legal order — is not being upheld. That is a matter for every person and every business that relies on EU law to be what it claims to be: the supreme and uniform law of the Union.