04/11/2026, 05:56
Substantiating with sources / links: 1. Denial of Justice Procedural Delay. Motion for "Restoration of the Status Quo Ante" from March 6, 2025 remained unaddressed. Verzögerungsrüge (delay complaint) filed under § 198 GVG 3. Existence of a Contractual Relationship Substantiation through the Vilnius Prosecutor's decision. 4. Legal Errors Regarding "c.i.c." Claims The court's assertion that pre-contractual liability (culpa in contrahendo) is non-contractual is a point of contention. By § 311 Abs. 2 BGB, the 2002 German Debt Law Reform, classifies c.i.c. as a contract-like obligation. The modern EuGH "functional approach" in Busch Energie (C-548/18) supersedes the outdated Tacconi case used by the court.
5. Procedural Violations. The One-Year Bar: EPO of Feb 14, 2020 -the absolute one-year deadline of § 321a Abs. 2 S. 2 ZPO had expired nearly 12 months before their filing in 2022; Subsidiarity: he was given another legal remedy of Appeal / Beschwerde
New title: Violation of EU Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 (Europeanby OrderGerman Courts – Request for PaymentInfringement Procedure) and Art 47 CharterProceedings
New petition description:
Violation of EU Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 by German courts – request for infringement proceedings against GermanyObjective:ToGermanyObjective:To demonstrate that Germany, through the decisions of Amtsgericht Wedding and Landgericht Berlin II, has violated directly applicable EU Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 (European Order for Payment Regulation), and to request the European Commission to investigate and – if evidence warrants – open infringement proceedings under ArticleArt. 258 TFEU.
The coreCore violation (fully documented): OnViolation: On 30 March 2022, Amtsgericht Wedding annulled a final, enforceable European Order for Payment (EOP) – EU 3577-19-2, value €227,592.43 – by admitting a national German procedural remedy (§321a ZPO, Anhörungsrüge).ZPO). The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had already ruled in Case C‑245/14 that such national remedies cannot be used to reopen a final EOP. ArticleArt. 20(3) of the EOP Regulation expressly states that the decision on a review application is final. The Amtsgericht Wedding did exactly what the CJEU prohibited. Landgericht Berlin II confirmed this on appeal. The Bundesgerichtshof closed further federal remedies.
AProcedural separate, independently serious breach – procedural asymmetry:TheAsymmetry:The respondent’s §321a application was accepted even though it was filed threetwo daysyears late,late lacked(14.02.2020 a- qualifiedEOP electronicdate: signature,07.02.2022 was- signeddebotr's by an unauthorised person,filing), and invoked a remedy the same court had ruled inapplicable in its own 2014 precedent. By contrast, my own §321a application – filed within eight days of the court’s express invitation to do so – was rejected as time‑barred. This is not judicial discretion. It is a violation of Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (right to a fair trial, equality of arms). These are directly enforceable rights under EU law.
Systemic Failure: German courts refuse to apply the Busch Energie (C-548/18) functional approach, wrongly classifying contractual claims as "non-contractual" to evade EU law. Despite a binding Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) ruling (2 BvR 973/24) stating the legal path was not exhausted, , a determination that has absolute binding effect on the Amtsgericht Wedding under § 31 Abs. 1 BVerfGG., the lower court has remained inactive for over 13 months.
Refusal of preliminary reference to the CJEU (Article 267 TFEU):Both German courts refused to make a preliminary reference despite explicit written requests. The questions I raised – can a national remedy reopen a final EPO? can unproven subjective grounds constitute “extraordinary circumstances” under Art. 20(2)? did the courts correctly apply the self‑contained character of the EOP system? – are genuine questions of EU law interpretation that go far beyond my individual case. The courts’ silence, without any reasoned explanation, violates the duty of sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) TEU) and the preliminary reference procedure itself.
What I ask the European Commission to do:Conduct an investigation as guardian of the Treaties. A Commission investigation into Germany’s application of the EOP Regulation could lead to a formal notice letter to Germany under Article 258 TFEU, and – if Germany does not remedy the violation – referral to the CJEU. A CJEU judgment against Germany in infringement proceedings would create binding EU‑wide precedent: national courts cannot use domestic procedural remedies to annul final European Orders for Payment.
What the European Parliament’s Committee can do:- Invite the German Government to provide written explanations on how German courts interpret Article 20(3) of the EOP Regulation and what measures ensure compliance with C‑245/14 – creating a formal, public record of Germany’s position. - Pass a resolution calling on the Commission to issue interpretive guidance to all Member States, clarifying the self‑contained character of the EOP system and the impermissibility of supplementary national review mechanisms. Such guidance would benefit not only my case but every creditor across the EU who relies on the EOP Regulation for cross‑border debt recovery.
Why this matters – systemic level:At the individual level, this petition places documented evidence of a specific, proven EU law violation before an institution with the power to act, creating additional pressure alongside the ongoing BVerfG and ECHR proceedings. At the systemic level, it invites the EU institutions to address a gap in the uniform application of the EOP Regulation. If left unaddressed, that gap will continue to undermine the Regulation’s fundamental purpose: providing legal certainty and efficient cross‑border enforcement across all 27 Member States.
Requests:The Commission investigate Germany’s systematic failure to uphold the finality of EOPs.The European Parliament invite the German Government to explain its interpretation of Art. 20(3).
Call to action:Sign this petition to demand that the European Commission hold Germany accountable. Protect every European investor and creditor from fraudulent debtors who exploit illegal national remedies to escape justice.
Signatures at the time of the change: 5
