Abstract

The proponents of the „transformation of an obligation” and „reverse accessoriness” of a contractual penalty look for arguments to depart from its accessorial nature. These concepts are the basis for arguing in favour of stipulating a contractual penalty also as regards pecuniary obligations.In the author’s opinion, a contractual penalty, regulated in the Civil Code, is an institution of a uniform and autonomic character – it concerns only a non-pecuniary obligations (Art. 483 § 1 of the Civil Code) and may be provided for in a contract separate from the source of claim for its payment. Thus, there is no need to question the accessorial nature of a contractual penalty because once a claim for a contractual penalty does arise it becomes independent for the main obligation.A uniform contractual penalty arises only under Art. 483–484 of the Civil Code and only then it can be mitigated as provided for in Art. 484 § 2 of the Civil Code.