A few words on the modification of the ruling in the part concerning compensatory damages

An important issue that requires in-depth consideration in the context of the issue of enforcement of judgments on the obligation imposed on the perpetrator to compensate for the damage inflicted or to make reparation for the harm suffered by the aggrieved party is the issue of the possibility to modify them (change the manner, scope or even revoke them) in enforcement proceedings. This raises the question: Is the executing authority entitled to make any changes (and if so, what changes) to the part of the judgment that concerns the obligation to compensate for the damage or harm suffered? Whether or not on the grounds of criminal law it is permissible to apply the institutions regulated in Article 453 of the CC, that is, datio in solutum (the essence of which consists in the fact that an obligation expires if the debtor, with the creditor’s consent, performs another service in order to be released from it), as well as in Article 509 of the Civil Code, the so-called assignment of claims (under which the creditor may, without the debtor’s consent, transfer a claim to a third party, unless this would be contrary to the law, a contractual stipulation or the nature of the obligation) and in Article 365 of the CC, that is, alternate obligations, or even in Article 506 of the Civil Code, that is, renewal (novation)? Whether and which amendments, if any, may be made by the court on the basis of Article 13(1) of the EPC? How much influence does the will of the aggrieved party or the will of the offender have on the manner in which such an obligation is to be performed and any modification thereof? The issues outlined are, among others, the subject of a broader analysis within this publication.