JUDr. Jana Tvrdá

  1. Active judge at the court Okresný súd Piešťany, we register 3,571 hearings and 2,145 judgements.

Indicators for 2021

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

Component – Quality

We register 75.32% 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 158 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 445.71% in 2021. The median amongst judges is 107,9%.
Anticipated time of the judge was based on data from 2021 0 days. Median amongst judges was 224,3 days.
In 2021 the judge decided 156 cases in the observed agendas.
In this dimension the judge belongs to the group that is better than average.

Component – Productivity

Weighted product of the judge in 2021 was 139.152. Median amongst judges was 248,1.
For the judge we register 0 unresolved cases at the end of 2021. From those 0.00% 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 – 17
  • Delays prior to case assignment – 13

The judge was mostly assigned to Family Agenda. The judge mostly issued judgements in Family Agenda.

The judge worked 1070 days in the period and was assigned on average 95 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2017, the judge received in total 21 from 40 possible points and ranked on 345 – 368. place of 651 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 9 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 12 out of 25 points

Chart 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 73.1% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.8%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 104
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 76

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 5.7% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 7.9%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 1.5% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 2.5%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 306 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 228 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 134 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 58.8% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 120.9% of assigned cases. Average was 141.8%.

Indicators for 2015

Number of Constitutional Court decisions against the judge:

  • Issued – 14
  • Delays prior to case assignment – 13

The judge was mostly assigned to Family Agenda. The judge mostly issued judgements in Family Agenda.

The judge worked 655 days in the period and was assigned on average 66 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2015, the judge received in total 19.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 467 – 491. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 7.5 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 12 out of 25 points

Chart 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 67.9% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.3%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 56
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 38

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 4.7% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 7.6%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 1.5% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 2.5%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 430 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 492 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 361 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 73.4% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 122.9% of assigned cases. Average was 97.1%.

Indicators for 2013

The number of Constitutional court judgements against the judges – issued 8 and delays prior to case assignment 7.

For the judge we register performance data for years 2012 – 2013:

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

The judge in this period worked 294 days and on average was assigned 213 cases in 10 days in main agendas.

Chart 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 70,8% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 65,5%.

  • Number of appellate judgements – 24
  • Number of confirmed judgements – 17

Odvolanie proti rozhodnutiam sudcu je podávané v približne 6,6% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 7,2%.

Z celkového počtu rozhodnutí sudcu je zmenených alebo zrušených 1,9%, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 2,5%.

Efficiency indicators

Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je 903 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.

Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 547 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.

Sudca mal na konci roka 397 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 68,3% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.

Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 59,4% prípadov. Priemer bol 99,6%.

Sudca získal podľa našej metodológie celkovo 9,75 bodov. Spomedzi 739 hodnotených sudcov sa umiestnil na 714 – 717. mieste. Za kvalitu získal 8,75 z 15 možných bodov, za efektivitu 1 z 25.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2013 – 5. – 7.6.2013 – Inštitút Omšenie – porada sudcov – 3 dni 30.10.2013 – Justičná akadémia Pezinok – "Rozvod (výška výživného....)" – 1 deň 6.11.2013 – Justičná akadémia Pezinok – "Dokazovanie, doručovanie v civilnom konaní" – 1 deň 28. – 29.11.2013 – Justičná akadémia Omšenie – "Spotrebiteľké úvery, neprijateľné zmluvné podmienky" – 2 dni
  • 2013 – 5. – 7.6.2013 – Inštitút Omšenie – porada sudcov – 3 dni 30.10.2013 – Justičná akadémia Pezinok – "Rozvod (výška výživného....)" – 1 deň 6.11.2013 – Justičná akadémia Pezinok – "Dokazovanie, doručovanie v civilnom konaní" – 1 deň 28. – 29.11.2013 – Justičná akadémia Omšenie – "Spotrebiteľké úvery, neprijateľné zmluvné podmienky" – 2 dni
  • 2012 – 30.5.2012 – 1.10.2012 1Spr/9/12 – Dodatok č. 6 k Rozvrhu práce OS Piešťany znížený pomer prideľovania spisov z1 na 0 v 13C, 13P, 13Cd, 13Ccud, 13S, 13U, 13PPOm, 13Po, 13Ps, 13Pd, 13Pcud z dôvodu dlhodobej práceneschopnosti.
  • 2012 – 30.5.2012 – 1.10.2012 1Spr/9/12 – Dodatok č. 6 k Rozvrhu práce OS Piešťany znížený pomer prideľovania spisov z1 na 0 v 13C, 13P, 13Cd, 13Ccud, 13S, 13U, 13PPOm, 13Po, 13Ps, 13Pd, 13Pcud z dôvodu dlhodobej práceneschopnosti.

Published judgements

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

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

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

  4. Uznesenie – Starostlivosť o maloletých
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  5. Uznesenie Judgement was issued on

  6. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

  8. Rozsudok – Schválenie právneho úkonu
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

  10. Uznesenie – Rozvod
    Odmietajúce podanie
    Judgement was issued on

More judgements

Upcoming hearings

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

Past hearings

  1. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, úprava práv a povinností Hearing was held on

  2. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, zverenie do starostlivosti +… Hearing was held on

  3. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, určenie výživného na manželku Hearing was held on

  4. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, nariadenie výchovného… Hearing was held on

  5. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, zníženie výživného na… Hearing was held on

  6. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, určenie príspevku na výživu… Hearing was held on

  7. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, úprava práv a povinností Hearing was held on

  8. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, nariadenie ústavnej… Hearing was held on

  9. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, zvýšenie výživného Hearing was held on

  10. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, určenie príspevku na výživu… 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.