Mgr. Ján Stanček

  1. Active judge at the court Okresný súd Pezinok, we register 3,595 hearings and 1,913 judgements.
  1. The judge has been nominated to function for about 19 years.

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges.

Indicators for 2021

We do not register any indicators for the judge yet.

Indicators for 2017

Number of Constitutional Court decisions against the judge:

  • Issued – 5
  • Delays prior to case assignment – 0

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

The judge worked 1537 days in the period and was assigned on average 101 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2017, the judge received in total 14 from 40 possible points and ranked on 581 – 593. place of 651 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 4.5 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 9.5 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 60.9% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 66.5%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 261
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 159

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 10.6% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 8.5%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 4.1% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 2.8%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 492.9 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 551 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 364 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 66.1% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 159.4% of assigned cases. Average was 141.8%.

Indicators for 2015

Number of Constitutional Court decisions against the judge:

  • Issued – 4
  • Delays prior to case assignment – 0

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

The judge worked 1095 days in the period and was assigned on average 78 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2015, the judge received in total 15 from 40 possible points and ranked on 623 – 638. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 4.5 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 10.5 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 54.5% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 64.9%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 143
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 78

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 9.1% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 8.8%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 4.2% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 489 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 768 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 427 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 55.6% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 108.5% of assigned cases. Average was 97.1%.

Indicators for 2013

The number of Constitutional court judgements against the judges – issued 2 and delays prior to case assignment 0.

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

Sudcovi bola prideľovaná najmä Obchodná agenda. Sudca rozhodoval najmä v Obchodnej agende.

The judge in this period worked 655 days and on average was assigned 195 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

Rozhodnutie sudcu bolo v prípade odvolania potvrdené v 55,4% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 63,7%.

  • Number of appellate judgements – 74
  • Number of confirmed judgements – 41

Odvolanie proti rozhodnutiam sudcu je podávané v približne 10,6% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 9,7%.

Z celkového počtu rozhodnutí sudcu je zmenených alebo zrušených 4,7%, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 3,4%.

Efficiency indicators

Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je 829 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.

Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 461 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.

Sudca mal na konci roka 463 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 65,4% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.

Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 79% prípadov. Priemer bol 99,6%.

Sudca získal podľa našej metodológie celkovo 7,5 bodov. Spomedzi 739 hodnotených sudcov sa umiestnil na 729 – 730. mieste. Za kvalitu získal 4,75 z 15 možných bodov, za efektivitu 2,75 z 25.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2013 – seminár – 22.–23.4.2013, 16.–17.05.2013
  • 2011 – Majetkové práva – 1 deň Premlčanie, preklúzia – 1 deň ; 2013 – seminár – 22.–23.4.2013, 16.–17.05.2013
  • 2011 – Majetkové práva – 1 deň Premlčanie, preklúzia – 1 deň

Published judgements

  1. Uznesenie – Spoluvlastníctvo
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  2. Rozsudok – Ostatné
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

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

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

  6. Uznesenie – Ostatné
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  7. Uznesenie – Ostatné
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

  9. Uznesenie – Ostatné
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  10. Uznesenie – Ostatné
    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. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zaplatenie 4.839,11 € s… Hearing was held on

  2. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zaplatenie 74.375,67 € s… Hearing was held on

  3. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, vydanie bezdôvodného obohatenia… Hearing was held on

  4. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zaplatenie 99,- € s… Hearing was held on

  5. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zaplatenie 3.900- € a iné Hearing was held on

  6. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zaplatenie 2.639,23 € s… Hearing was held on

  7. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zaplatenie 2.123,40 € s… Hearing was held on

  8. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zaplatenie 489,13 € s… Hearing was held on

  9. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zaplatenie 300,- € s… Hearing was held on

  10. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zaplatenie 52.128,15 € s… 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.