JUDr. Jana Třešková

  1. Active judge at the court Okresný súd Senica, we register 2,932 hearings and 1,566 judgements.
  1. The judge has been nominated to function for more than 27 years, bez časového obmedzenia funkcie.

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 79.18% 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 293 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 84.98% in 2021. The median amongst judges is 107,9%.
Anticipated time of the judge was based on data from 2021 428 days. Median amongst judges was 224,3 days.
In 2021 the judge decided 181 cases in the observed agendas.
In this dimension the judge belongs to the group that is worse than average.

Component – Productivity

Weighted product of the judge in 2021 was 181.385. Median amongst judges was 248,1.
For the judge we register 189 unresolved cases at the end of 2021. From those 55.56% 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 worse than 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 Criminal agenda. The judge mostly issued judgements in translation missing: en.judges.indicators_2015.basic.decided_agenda.trestná.

The judge worked 1488 days in the period and was assigned on average 81 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2017, the judge received in total 28.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 49 – 61. place of 651 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 12 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 16.5 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 79.9% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 66%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 219
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 175

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 11.6% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 8.7%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 2.3% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 2.9%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 143.5 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 127 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 30 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 23.6% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 99.4% 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 Criminal agenda. The judge mostly issued judgements in Criminal agenda.

The judge worked 1066 days in the period and was assigned on average 50 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2015, the judge received in total 25.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 194 – 213. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 10.5 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 15 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 77.9% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 63.8%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 145
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 113

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 12% 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 146 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 118 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 33.9% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 92.2% 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 Trestná agenda. Sudca rozhodoval najmä v Trestnej agende.

The judge in this period worked 638 days and on average was assigned 71 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 70% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 52,3%.

  • Number of appellate judgements – 70
  • Number of confirmed judgements – 49

Odvolanie proti rozhodnutiam sudcu je podávané v približne 12,3% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 8,4%.

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

Efficiency indicators

Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je 139 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.

Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 73 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.

Sudca mal na konci roka 41 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 52,6% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.

Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 119,3% prípadov. Priemer bol 99,6%.

Sudca získal podľa našej metodológie celkovo 27,25 bodov. Spomedzi 739 hodnotených sudcov sa umiestnil na 84 – 92. mieste. Za kvalitu získal 9,75 z 15 možných bodov, za efektivitu 17,5 z 25.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2013 – 5.6. – 6.6.2013 – 2 dni Omšenie (celokrajská porada sudcov).
  • 2012 – 23.5.–25.5.2013 – 3 dni Omšenie (celokrajská porada sudcov); 2013 – 5.6. – 6.6.2013 – 2 dni Omšenie (celokrajská porada sudcov).
  • 2012 – 23.5.–25.5.2013 – 3 dni Omšenie (celokrajská porada sudcov)

Published judgements

  1. Rozsudok – Sloboda a ľudská dôstojnosť
    Iná povaha rozhodnutia
    Judgement was issued on

  2. Trestný rozkaz – Všeobecne nebezpečné a proti…
    Iná povaha rozhodnutia
    Judgement was issued on

  3. Trestný rozkaz – Poriadok vo verejných veciach
    Iná povaha rozhodnutia
    Judgement was issued on

  4. Trestný rozkaz – Rodina a mládež
    Iná povaha rozhodnutia
    Judgement was issued on

  5. Trestný rozkaz – Majetok
    Iná povaha rozhodnutia
    Judgement was issued on

  6. Trestný rozkaz – Majetok
    Iná povaha rozhodnutia
    Judgement was issued on

  7. Trestný rozkaz – Majetok
    Iná povaha rozhodnutia
    Judgement was issued on

  8. Rozsudok – Sloboda a ľudská dôstojnosť
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

  10. Trestný rozkaz – Hospodárske trestné činy
    Iná povaha rozhodnutia
    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, OZZ: nedovolená výroba omamných… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Senica
    Judge – JUDr. Jana Třešková
    Defendant – E. I.
  2. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zločin: vydieranie Hearing was held on

  3. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, porušovanie domovej slobody Hearing was held on

  4. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, prečin marenia úradného… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Senica
    Judge – JUDr. Jana Třešková
    Defendant – E. N.
  5. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, prečin: zanedbanie povinnej… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Senica
    Judge – JUDr. Jana Třešková
    Defendant – R. F.
  6. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, prečin: nebezpečné vyhrážanie Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Senica
    Judge – JUDr. Jana Třešková
    Defendant – Y. Z.
  7. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, prečin: zanedbanie povinnej… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Senica
    Judge – JUDr. Jana Třešková
    Defendant – L. F.
  8. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, prečin: týranie zvierat Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Senica
    Judge – JUDr. Jana Třešková
    Defendant – G. I.
  9. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, prečin: nebezpečné vyhrážanie Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Senica
    Judge – JUDr. Jana Třešková
    Defendant – R. D.
  10. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, prečin: výtržníctvo Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Senica
    Judge – JUDr. Jana Třešková
    Defendant – S. H.
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.