JUDr. Laura Žideková

  1. Active judge at the court Okresný súd Čadca, we register 2,301 hearings and 1,883 judgements.
  1. The judge has been nominated to function for more than 6 years.

Indicators for 2017

Number of Constitutional Court decisions against the judge:

  • Issued – 5
  • Delays prior to case assignment – 3

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

The judge worked 948 days in the period and was assigned on average 45 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2017, the judge received in total 23 from 40 possible points and ranked on 244 – 268. place of 651 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 9 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 14 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 71.1% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 68.7%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 194
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 138

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 10.5% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 10.1%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 3% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3.1%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 365 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 278 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 166 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 59.7% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 174.8% of assigned cases. Average was 141.8%.

Indicators for 2015

Number of Constitutional Court decisions against the judge:

  • Issued – 3
  • Delays prior to case assignment – 3

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

The judge worked 556 days in the period and was assigned on average 44 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2015, the judge received in total 21.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 367 – 389. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 9 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 12.5 out of 25 points

Quality Indicators

The judge's judgements were on appeal affirmed in 73.2% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.1%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 97
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 71

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 8.1% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 9.3%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 2.2% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 410 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 671 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 357 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 53.2% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 107.9% 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 2013:

Sudcovi bola prideľovaná najmä Občiansko–právna agenda. Sudca rozhodoval najmä v Občiansko–právnej agende.

The judge in this period worked 132 days and on average was assigned 539 cases in 10 days in main agendas.

Quality indicators

Rozhodnutie sudcu bolo v prípade odvolania potvrdené v 75% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 62,9%.

  • Number of appellate judgements – 12
  • Number of confirmed judgements – 9

Odvolanie proti rozhodnutiam sudcu je podávané v približne 7,4% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 8,9%.

Z celkového počtu rozhodnutí sudcu je zmenených alebo zrušených 1,9%, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 3,3%.

Efficiency indicators

Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je 1185 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.

Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 526 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.

Sudca mal na konci roka 263 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 48,3% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.

Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 22,8% prípadov. Priemer bol 99,6%.

Sudca získal podľa našej metodológie celkovo 12,25 bodov. Spomedzi 739 hodnotených sudcov sa umiestnil na 682 – 687. mieste. Za kvalitu získal 10,25 z 15 možných bodov, za efektivitu 2 z 25.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2013 – Občianskoprávna a obchodná agenda, 12.11.2013, Omšenie Spotrebiteľské zmluvy, neprijateľné zmluvné podmienky, 28.–29.11.2013 Omšenie
  • 2013 – Občianskoprávna a obchodná agenda, 12.11.2013, Omšenie Spotrebiteľské zmluvy, neprijateľné zmluvné podmienky, 28.–29.11.2013 Omšenie

Published judgements

  1. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  2. Uznesenie – Bezpodielové spoluvlastníctvo manželov
    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. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  6. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  7. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  8. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  9. Rozsudok – Poistenie
    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, určenie spoluvlastníckeho… Hearing will be held on

  2. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zaplatenie 6.625,96 Kč s… Hearing will be held on

  3. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o zaplatenie 1234,94 EUR s… Hearing will be held on

  4. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zaplatenie 4.657,50 € s prísl. Hearing will be held on

  5. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, určenie vlastníckeho práva k… Hearing will be held on

  6. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, určenie vlastníckeho práva k… Hearing will be held on

  7. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zaplatenie 1.134,50 € s prísl. Hearing will be held on

  8. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zníženie výživného na malol.… Hearing will be held on

  9. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, určenie neplatnosti darovacej… Hearing will be held on

  10. Verejné vyhlásenie rozsudku, zaplatenie 302,08 € s prísl. Hearing will be held on

More hearings

Past hearings

  1. Verejné vyhlásenie rozsudku, zaplatenie 100,- € a prísl. Hearing was held on

  2. Verejné vyhlásenie rozsudku, zaplatenie 791,50 € s prísl. Hearing was held on

  3. Verejné vyhlásenie rozsudku, zaplatenie 329 € s prísl. Hearing was held on

  4. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zrušenie bezpodielového… Hearing was held on

  5. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zrušenie a vyporiadanie podiel.… Hearing was held on

  6. Verejné vyhlásenie rozsudku, vyhlásenie za mŕtveho Hearing was held on

  7. Verejné vyhlásenie rozsudku, zaplatenie 288,80 € s prísl. Hearing was held on

  8. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zrušenie rozhodcovského… Hearing was held on

  9. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, vydanie nehnuteľnosti Hearing was held on

  10. Verejné vyhlásenie rozsudku, zaplatenie 480 € s prísl. 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.