Mgr. Marián Polaček

  1. Active judge at the court Okresný súd Prešov, we register 2,626 hearings and 1,575 judgements.
  1. The judge has been nominated to function for more than 27 years, 4 - ročný mandát.

Indicators for 2021

Overall evaluation of the judge is below average.
Incoming cases for the judge in 2021 were mostly from criminal agenda. Judge's decrees in 2021 were mostly from criminal agenda.

Component – Quality

We register 61.94% decrees for the judge, which are confirmed by the higher court in case of an appeal. The median amongst judges is 68,9%. We register 310 decrees concerning appeals.
In this dimension the judge belongs to the group that is worse than average.

Component – Effectivity

The judge had overal appointment of cases of 100.37% in 2021. The median amongst judges is 107,9%.
Anticipated time of the judge was based on data from 2021 250 days. Median amongst judges was 224,3 days.
In 2021 the judge decided 271 cases in the observed agendas.
In this dimension the judge belongs to the group that is average.

Component – Productivity

Weighted product of the judge in 2021 was 246.747. Median amongst judges was 248,1.
For the judge we register 182 unresolved cases at the end of 2021. From those 71.98% are restant cases. Median amongst judges was 39,34% of restant cases from the total number of unresolved cases.
In this dimension the judge belongs to the group that is average.

Overall Evaluation
Evaluation on a scale from 0 to 10.

Indicators for 2017

Number of Constitutional Court decisions against the judge:

  • Issued – 2
  • Delays prior to case assignment – 0

The judge was mostly assigned to Criminal agenda. The judge mostly issued judgements in translation missing: en.judges.indicators_2015.basic.decided_agenda.trestná.

The judge worked 1510 days in the period and was assigned on average 109 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2017, the judge received in total 19.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 411 – 435. place of 651 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 6 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 13.5 out of 25 points

Chart Comparison

Legend
Additional Judges
Select other judges for comparison:
Advanced Comparison
The chart is most useful for comparisons of judges at the same or similar courts, and those who decide cases in the same or similar agenda. Specific courts and agendas have an impact on the overall performance of judges. Simply put, commercial judge from Bratislava and criminal judge from Rožňava decide uncomparable cases.

Quality Indicators

The judge's judgements were on appeal affirmed in 63% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 66%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 184
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 116

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 7.8% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 8.7%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 2.9% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 2.9%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 157.4 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 160 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 83 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 51.9% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 101.9% of assigned cases. Average was 141.8%.

Indicators for 2015

Number of Constitutional Court decisions against the judge:

  • Issued – 2
  • Delays prior to case assignment – 0

The judge was mostly assigned to Criminal agenda. The judge mostly issued judgements in Criminal agenda.

The judge worked 1094 days in the period and was assigned on average 75 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2015, the judge received in total 24.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 238 – 261. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 7.5 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 17 out of 25 points

Chart Comparison

Legend
Additional Judges
Select other judges for comparison:
Advanced Comparison
The chart is most useful for comparisons of judges at the same or similar courts, and those who decide cases in the same or similar agenda. Specific courts and agendas have an impact on the overall performance of judges. Simply put, commercial judge from Bratislava and criminal judge from Rožňava decide uncomparable cases.

Quality Indicators

The judge's judgements were on appeal affirmed in 66.4% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 63.8%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 128
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 85

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 7.7% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 8.1%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 2.6% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 120 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 109 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 40 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 36.7% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 94.3% of assigned cases. Average was 97.1%.

Indicators for 2013

We do not register any indicators for the judge yet.

Published judgements

  1. Trestný rozkaz – Majetok
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  2. Rozsudok – Všeobecne nebezpečné a proti životnému…
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  3. Uznesenie – Sloboda a ľudská dôstojnosť
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  4. Uznesenie – Sloboda a ľudská dôstojnosť
    Potvrdené
    Judgement was issued on

  5. Uznesenie – Majetok
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  6. Uznesenie – Sloboda a ľudská dôstojnosť
    Zmenené
    Judgement was issued on

  7. Trestný rozkaz – Všeobecne nebezpečné a proti…
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  8. Trestný rozkaz – Všeobecne nebezpečné a proti…
    Potvrdené
    Judgement was issued on

  9. Rozsudok – Poriadok vo verejných veciach
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  10. Rozsudok – Majetok
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

More judgements

Upcoming hearings

We do not register any upcoming hearings for the judge yet.

Past hearings

  1. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, § 207 ods.1 Tr.zák. a… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Prešov
    Judge – Mgr. Marián Polaček
    Defendant – F. A.
  2. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, § 212 ods. 2 Tr. zák. Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Prešov
    Judge – Mgr. Marián Polaček
    Defendant – E. O.
  3. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, § 208 ods.1 Tr.zák. a… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Prešov
    Judge – Mgr. Marián Polaček
    Defendant – L. X.
  4. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, § 276 ods. 1 Tr. zák.… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Prešov
    Judge – Mgr. Marián Polaček
    Defendant – R. D.
  5. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, § 189 ods. 1 Tr. zák.… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Prešov
    Judge – Mgr. Marián Polaček
    Defendant – I. X.
  6. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, § 245 ods. 1 Tr. zák.… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Prešov
    Judge – Mgr. Marián Polaček
    Defendant – G. F.
  7. Verejné zasadnutie s rozhodnutím, § 289 ods. 1 Tr. zák. Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Prešov
    Judge – Mgr. Marián Polaček
    Defendant – G. Y.
  8. Verejné zasadnutie s rozhodnutím, § 289 ods.1 Tr.zák. Hearing was held on

  9. Verejné zasadnutie s rozhodnutím, Obžaloba Hearing was held on

  10. Verejné zasadnutie s rozhodnutím, o premenu zvyšku trestu Hearing was held on

More hearings

Information regarding the court were obtained from the judge list, which was most recently updated on . The information may have been additionally supplemented by the data retrieved from property declarations and statistical reports.