Abstract

In the presented commentary the Author has not shared the Supreme Court position expressed in the resolution dated 17 February 2016 (III CZP 106/15), according to which the creditor who as a result of judicial proceedings gained authorization to perform an action at the expense of the debtor (Art. 480 § 1 of the Civil Code) may – pursuant to the 2nd sentence of Art. 1049 § of the Code of Civil Procedure – request the court the adjudge to him the amount of money needed to perform that action. In the opinion of the Author, formulating the contents of the claim the creditor chooses the possible (enforcement or non-enforcement) procedure for carrying out the order to perform the substitutable action in the future. It has been stressed that it is not possible – as the Supreme Court did in the glosses resolution – to pick out a fragment of a provision ignoring its content and the legal context of the regulation. Enforcement under Art. 1049 of the Code of Civil Procedure is made up of two stages which determine its substance. The article ends with a presentation of enforcement of a substitutable action also in other legal systems.