JUDr. Lucia Prčová

  1. Active judge at the court Okresný súd Rimavská Sobota, we register 429 hearings and 3,682 judgements.
  2. Inactive judge at the court Okresný súd Revúca, we register 2,056 hearings and no judgements.
  3. Inactive judge at the court Krajský súd Žilina, in the meantime we register no hearings and no judgements.

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges.

Indicators for 2021

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

Component – Quality

We register 86.59% 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 164 decrees concerning appeals.
In this dimension the judge belongs to the group that is better than average.

Component – Effectivity

The judge had overal appointment of cases of 104.91% in 2021. The median amongst judges is 107,9%.
Anticipated time of the judge was based on data from 2021 151 days. Median amongst judges was 224,3 days.
In 2021 the judge decided 235 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 226.792. Median amongst judges was 248,1.
For the judge we register 96 unresolved cases at the end of 2021. From those 11.46% 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 – 0
  • Delays prior to case assignment – 0

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

The judge worked 879 days in the period and was assigned on average 42 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2017, the judge received in total 26 from 40 possible points and ranked on 113 – 132. place of 651 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 15 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 11 out of 25 points

Chart Comparison

Legend
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 89.5% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 68.7%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 133
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 119

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 8.3% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 10.1%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 0.9% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3.1%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 372.8 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 96 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 58 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 60.4% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 136.2% of assigned cases. Average was 141.8%.

Indicators for 2015

Number of Constitutional Court decisions against the judge:

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

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

The judge worked 571 days in the period and was assigned on average 40 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2015, the judge received in total 26.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 153 – 167. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 15 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 11.5 out of 25 points

Chart Comparison

Legend
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 89.7% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.1%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 87
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 78

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 8.2% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 9.3%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 0.8% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 308 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 471 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 156 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 33.1% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 81% of assigned cases. Average was 97.1%.

Indicators for 2013

The number of Constitutional court judgements against the judges – issued 0 and delays prior to case assignment 0.

For the judge we register performance data for years 2011 a 2013:

Sudcovi bola prideľovaná najmä Občiansko–právna agenda. Sudca rozhodoval najmä v Občiansko–právnej agende.

The judge in this period worked 139 days and on average was assigned 299 cases in 10 days in main agendas.

Chart Comparison

Legend
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

Evidujeme menej ako 10 odvolaní o rozhodnutiach sudcu, preto dáta považujeme za nereprezentatívne.

Efficiency indicators

Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je 1394 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.

Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 317 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.

Sudca mal na konci roka 137 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 42,8% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.

Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 22,7% prípadov. Priemer bol 99,6%.

Dáta o kvalite a efektivite sudcu nepovažujeme za dostatočné, preto sudcu bodovo nehodnotíme.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2013 – 1 deň – účasť na vzdelávacom podujatí, 2 dní – pracovné stretnutie
  • 2011 – Sudkyňa od 21. 4. 2011 čerpá materskú dovolenku s pokračovaním čerpania rodičovskej dovolenky.; 2013 – 1 deň – účasť na vzdelávacom podujatí, 2 dní – pracovné stretnutie
  • 2011 – Sudkyňa od 21. 4. 2011 čerpá materskú dovolenku s pokračovaním čerpania rodičovskej dovolenky.
  • 2011 – Sudkyni v sledovanom období (od 1. 1. 2011 do 20. 04. 2011) nebol znížený nápad.
  • 2011 – Sudkyni v sledovanom období (od 1. 1. 2011 do 20. 04. 2011) nebol znížený nápad.

Published judgements

  1. Opravné uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  2. Rozsudok – Starostlivosť o maloletých
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  3. Rozsudok – Starostlivosť o maloletých – Vyživovacie…
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  4. Rozsudok – Výchovné opatrenia
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  5. Rozsudok – Výchovné opatrenia
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  6. Rozsudok – Starostlivosť o maloletých
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  7. Rozsudok – Starostlivosť o maloletých
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  8. Uznesenie – Rozvod
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  9. Rozsudok – Starostlivosť o maloletých – Vyživovacie…
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

More judgements

Upcoming hearings

  1. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zmena zariadenia na výkon… Hearing will be held on

  2. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, uloženie výchovného opatrenia Hearing will be held on

  3. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, ustanovenie majetkového… Hearing will be held on

  4. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, rozvod manželstva Hearing will be held on

  5. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zvýšenie výživného na mal. deti Hearing will be held on

  6. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zverenie mal. dieťaťa do… Hearing will be held on

  7. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, rozvod manželstva Hearing will be held on

  8. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, rozvod a úprava práv a… Hearing will be held on

  9. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, schválenie právneho úkonu Hearing will be held on

  10. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, schválenie právneho úkonu Hearing will be held on

More hearings

Past hearings

  1. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, rozvod manželstva Hearing was held on

  2. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, výkon rozhodnutia Hearing was held on

  3. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zmena úpravy práv a povinností… Hearing was held on

  4. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, návrh na vydanie neodkladného… Hearing was held on

  5. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, rozvod manželstva a úprava… Hearing was held on

  6. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, úprava práv a povinností k mal.… Hearing was held on

  7. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, uloženie výchovného opatrenia Hearing was held on

  8. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, uloženie výchovného opatrenia Hearing was held on

  9. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, obmedzenie spôsobilosti na… Hearing was held on

  10. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zmena opatrovníka 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.