Mgr. Eva Suchová

  1. Active judge at the court Okresný súd Bratislava IV, we register 3,192 hearings and 2,487 judgements.
  1. The judge has been nominated to function for more than 26 years, bez časového obmedzenia funkcie.

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges.

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 Family Agenda. The judge mostly issued judgements in Family Agenda.

The judge worked 1529 days in the period and was assigned on average 102 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2017, the judge received in total 19 from 40 possible points and ranked on 436 – 463. place of 651 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 7.5 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 69.8% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.8%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 361
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 252

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 16.2% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 7.9%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 4.9% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 2.5%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 259.2 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 218 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 110 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 50.5% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 100.7% 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 Family Agenda. The judge mostly issued judgements in Family Agenda.

The judge worked 1089 days in the period and was assigned on average 76 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2015, the judge received in total 24 from 40 possible points and ranked on 262 – 285. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 9 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 15 out of 25 points

Quality Indicators

The judge's judgements were on appeal affirmed in 73.4% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.3%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 244
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 179

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 15.1% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 7.6%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 4% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 2.5%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 232 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 235 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 87 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 37% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 98.4% 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 – 2013:

Sudcovi bola prideľovaná najmä agenda Starostlivosti o maloletých. Sudca rozhodoval najmä v agende Starostlivosti o maloletých.

The judge in this period worked 656 days and on average was assigned 141 cases in 10 days in main agendas.

Quality indicators

Rozhodnutie sudcu bolo v prípade odvolania potvrdené v 72,5% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 65,5%.

  • Number of appellate judgements – 153
  • Number of confirmed judgements – 111

Odvolanie proti rozhodnutiam sudcu je podávané v približne 16,8% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 7,2%.

Z celkového počtu rozhodnutí sudcu je zmenených alebo zrušených 4,6%, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 2,5%.

Efficiency indicators

Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je 151 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.

Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 139 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.

Sudca mal na konci roka 72 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 36,7% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.

Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 96,6% prípadov. Priemer bol 99,6%.

Sudca získal podľa našej metodológie celkovo 22,75 bodov. Spomedzi 739 hodnotených sudcov sa umiestnil na 269 – 285. mieste. Za kvalitu získal 6 z 15 možných bodov, za efektivitu 16,75 z 25.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2012 – – Aktuálna rozhodovacia činnosť špecializovaných rodinných senátov 09.02.2012 – 10.02.2012 – 2 dni
  • 2011 – Seminár – Špecifiká rozhodovania v otázkach detí a rodiny v súdnom konaní – 1 deň –poslucháč; 2012 – – Aktuálna rozhodovacia činnosť špecializovaných rodinných senátov 09.02.2012 – 10.02.2012 – 2 dni
  • 2011 – Seminár – Špecifiká rozhodovania v otázkach detí a rodiny v súdnom konaní – 1 deň –poslucháč

Published judgements

  1. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

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

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

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

  6. Rozsudok – Rozvod
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

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

  9. Rozsudok – Rozvod
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  10. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

More judgements

Upcoming hearings

  1. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, rozvod a ÚPP Hearing will be held on

  2. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zmena úpravy výkonu… Hearing will be held on

  3. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, rozvod + ú.p.p. Hearing will be held on

  4. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, nahradenie súhlasu otca s… Hearing will be held on

  5. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zníženie výživného Hearing will be held on

  6. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, rozvod a ÚPP Hearing will be held on

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

  8. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zvýšenie výživného Hearing will be held on

  9. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, ROZVOD + ÚPP Hearing will be held on

  10. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, ú.p.p. Hearing will be held on

More hearings

Past hearings

  1. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zmena úpravy výkonu… Hearing was held on

  2. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, rozvod a ÚPP Hearing was held on

  3. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, rozvod + ú.p.p. Hearing was held on

  4. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zmena úpravy výkonu… Hearing was held on

  5. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zvýšenie výživného Hearing was held on

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

  7. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, rozvod a ÚPP Hearing was held on

  8. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, úprava výkonu rodičovských práv… Hearing was held on

  9. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, rozvod a ÚPP Hearing was held on

  10. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, rozvod a ÚPP 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.