JUDr. Vladimír Varga

  1. Active judge at the court Okresný súd Humenné, we register 2,965 hearings and 1,638 judgements.
  1. The judge has been nominated to function for more than 13 years.

Close persons acknowledged in property declarations in years 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2014:

Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2013:

Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2012:

Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2011:

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges.

Indicators for 2021

Overall evaluation of the judge is 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 60.04% 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 523 decrees concerning appeals.
In this dimension the judge belongs to the group that is worse than average.

Component – Effectivity

The judge had overal appointment of cases of 113.50% in 2021. The median amongst judges is 107,9%.
Anticipated time of the judge was based on data from 2021 122 days. Median amongst judges was 224,3 days.
In 2021 the judge decided 227 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 231.732. Median amongst judges was 248,1.
For the judge we register 78 unresolved cases at the end of 2021. From those 51.28% 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 Criminal agenda. The judge mostly issued judgements in translation missing: en.judges.indicators_2015.basic.decided_agenda.trestná.

The judge worked 1499 days in the period and was assigned on average 113 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2017, the judge received in total 20.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 369 – 388. place of 651 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 6 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 14.5 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 61.1% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 66%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 270
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 165

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 9.7% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 8.7%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 3.8% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 2.9%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 129.4 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 106 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 57 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 53.8% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 109.1% 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 1082 days in the period and was assigned on average 88 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2015, the judge received in total 20 from 40 possible points and ranked on 444 – 466. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 4.5 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 15.5 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 54.1% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 63.8%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 133
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 72

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 6.2% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 8.1%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 2.8% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 160 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 138 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 62 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 44.9% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 94% 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 Občiansko–právna agenda. Sudca rozhodoval najmä v Občiansko–právnej agende.

The judge in this period worked 645 days and on average was assigned 260 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 43,5% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 62,9%.

  • Number of appellate judgements – 46
  • Number of confirmed judgements – 20

Odvolanie proti rozhodnutiam sudcu je podávané v približne 3,6% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 8,9%.

Z celkového počtu rozhodnutí sudcu je zmenených alebo zrušených 2%, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 3,3%.

Efficiency indicators

Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je 94 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.

Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 52 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.

Sudca mal na konci roka 17 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 30,4% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.

Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 83,1% 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 5 z 15 možných bodov, za efektivitu 17,75 z 25.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2013 – od 01.02. 2013 sudca preložený z OS Vranov nad Topľou; Koniec vyko návania sudcu na Okresnom súde vo Vranove nad Topľou a pridelenie na Okresný súd v Humennom.
  • 2013 – od 01.02. 2013 sudca preložený z OS Vranov nad Topľou; Koniec vyko návania sudcu na Okresnom súde vo Vranove nad Topľou a pridelenie na Okresný súd v Humennom.
  • 2013 – 28–29. 10. 2013 odborný seminár v Omšení – 2 dní, od 30–31. 10. 2013 školenie sudcov Prešov – 2 dní.
  • 2012 – 1. 17. 05. 2012 – Krajský súd Košice – Odstrániteľnéúneodstrániteľné vady návrhu, podania. 2. 28. 05. 2012 – Krajský súdKošice – Prejudiciálna otázka podľa čl. 267 Zmluvy o fungovaní EÚ v trestnom konaní súdnom.. 3. 13. 09. 2012 – Krajský súd Košice – Najnopvšia judikatúra ESĽP a jej dôsledky na rozhodovaciu činnosť vnútroštátnych súdov.
  • 2011 – 07. 04. 2011 – školenie Trenčianské Teplice – Omšenie 18. 04. 2011 – školenie Trenčianske Teplice – Omšenie 22. 09. – 23. 09. 2011 – školenie Trenčianske Teplice – Omšenie 24. 11. 2011– školenie sudcov C, Cb na Krajskom súde v Prešove; 2012 – 1. 17. 05. 2012 – Krajský súd Košice – Odstrániteľnéúneodstrániteľné vady návrhu, podania. 2. 28. 05. 2012 – Krajský súdKošice – Prejudiciálna otázka podľa čl. 267 Zmluvy o fungovaní EÚ v trestnom konaní súdnom.. 3. 13. 09. 2012 – Krajský súd Košice – Najnopvšia judikatúra ESĽP a jej dôsledky na rozhodovaciu činnosť vnútroštátnych súdov. ; 2013 – 28–29. 10. 2013 odborný seminár v Omšení – 2 dní, od 30–31. 10. 2013 školenie sudcov Prešov – 2 dní.
  • 2011 – 07. 04. 2011 – školenie Trenčianské Teplice – Omšenie 18. 04. 2011 – školenie Trenčianske Teplice – Omšenie 22. 09. – 23. 09. 2011 – školenie Trenčianske Teplice – Omšenie 24. 11. 2011– školenie sudcov C, Cb na Krajskom súde v Prešove

Published judgements

  1. Trestný rozkaz – Poriadok vo verejných veciach
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  2. Trestný rozkaz – Majetok
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  3. Trestný rozkaz – Majetok
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  4. Trestný rozkaz – Poriadok vo verejných veciach
    Zrušujúce
    Judgement was issued on

  5. Trestný rozkaz – Všeobecne nebezpečné a proti…
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  6. Trestný rozkaz – Majetok
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  7. Trestný rozkaz – Iné práva a slobody
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  8. Trestný rozkaz – Všeobecne nebezpečné a proti…
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  9. Trestný rozkaz – Všeobecne nebezpečné a proti…
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  10. Trestný rozkaz – Majetok
    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. Hlavné pojednávanie s rozhodnutím, § 251 ods. 1, ods. 3 Tr.… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Humenné
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Varga
    Defendant – L. V.
  2. Hlavné pojednávanie s rozhodnutím, § 172 ods. 1 písm. c/… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Humenné
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Varga
    Defendant – D. F.
  3. Hlavné pojednávanie s rozhodnutím, § 172 ods. 1 písm. c)… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Humenné
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Varga
    Defendant – G. L.
  4. Verejné zasadnutie s rozhodnutím, ! 194/1,2 písm. b/ Tr.… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Humenné
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Varga
    Defendant – F. H.
  5. Hlavné pojednávanie s rozhodnutím, § 157 ods. 1, 2a Tr.… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Humenné
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Varga
    Defendant – S. Y.
  6. Hlavné pojednávanie s rozhodnutím, § 20 k § 194 ods.1, 2… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Humenné
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Varga
    Defendant – W. N.
  7. Hlavné pojednávanie s rozhodnutím, § 251 ods. 1, ods. 3 Tr.… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Humenné
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Varga
    Defendant – E. S.
  8. Hlavné pojednávanie s rozhodnutím, § 360/1, 2a) Tr. zák Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Humenné
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Varga
    Defendant – V. U.
  9. Verejné zasadnutie s rozhodnutím, § 279/1,2 písm.a/ Tr.… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Humenné
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Varga
    Defendant – G. L.
  10. Verejné zasadnutie s rozhodnutím, § 20 k § 212 ods. 2 písm.… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Humenné
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Varga
    Defendant – M. X.
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.