The paper is devoted to the study of the balance between the implementation of the principles of discretion and judicial supervision of the procedure based on the case of the collection of penalties (fines) and interest for the use of other people’s money. The paper examines the problems of implementing the principles of procedural effectiveness and procedural efficiency that arise when observing the requirements for the implementation of the principle of competition, the need for which arises when the claimant’s discretion is demonstrated. It is concluded that due to the nature of the penalty, there is no direct need for the claimant to indicate the continuing nature of the penalty, since the requirement to accrue the penalty (interest for the use of other people’s money) until the day of actual fulfillment of the obligation follows from the nature of this institution and the contractual structures accepted in business. The necessity of mandatory collection of a failure-to-pay penalty by the court with an indication of this in the operative part of the decision, unless otherwise provided by law, by contract, or unless otherwise stated by the claimant, is also substantiated. The conclusion is made about the need to increase the degree of implementation of the principle of judicial supervision of the procedure when resolving the issue of assigning a failure-to-pay penalty for the purpose of procedural efficiency and increasing the efficiency of the administration of justice.