JUDr. Ľubica Cambelová

  1. Inactive judge at the court Okresný súd Levice, we register 3,725 hearings and 2,839 judgements.

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges.

Indicators for 2021

We do not register any indicators for the judge yet.

Indicators for 2017

Number of Constitutional Court decisions against the judge:

  • Issued – 1
  • Delays prior to case assignment – 1

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

The judge worked 1498 days in the period and was assigned on average 34 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2017, the judge received in total 26 from 40 possible points and ranked on 113 – 132. place of 651 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 10.5 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 76.3% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 68.7%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 177
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 135

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 4.9% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 10.1%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 1.2% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3.1%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 350 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 421 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 347 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 82.4% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 372% of assigned cases. Average was 141.8%.

Indicators for 2015

Number of Constitutional Court decisions against the judge:

  • Issued – 1
  • Delays prior to case assignment – 1

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

The judge worked 1065 days in the period and was assigned on average 38 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2015, the judge received in total 16 from 40 possible points and ranked on 591 – 600. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 12 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 4 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 81.4% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.1%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 97
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 79

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 4.1% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 9.3%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 0.8% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 604 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 1310 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 482 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 36.8% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 72.8% of assigned cases. Average was 97.1%.

Indicators for 2013

The number of Constitutional court judgements against the judges – issued 1 and delays prior to case assignment 1.

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 660 days and on average was assigned 239 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 80,9% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 62,9%.

  • Number of appellate judgements – 68
  • Number of confirmed judgements – 55

Odvolanie proti rozhodnutiam sudcu je podávané v približne 5,1% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 8,9%.

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

Efficiency indicators

Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je 574 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.

Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 587 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.

Sudca mal na konci roka 356 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 59,1% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.

Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 90,5% prípadov. Priemer bol 99,6%.

Sudca získal podľa našej metodológie celkovo 18 bodov. Spomedzi 739 hodnotených sudcov sa umiestnil na 519 – 534. mieste. Za kvalitu získal 13 z 15 možných bodov, za efektivitu 5 z 25.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2013 – Sudkyňa nemala znížený nápad.
  • 2013 – Nevykazujeme účasť.
  • 2012 – Sudca sa zúčastnil na vzdelávacích aktivitách 2x
  • 2012 – Nebol dôvod na zníženie nápadu
  • 2011 – nemá znížený nápad ; 2012 – Nebol dôvod na zníženie nápadu; 2013 – Sudkyňa nemala znížený nápad.
  • 2011 – nemá znížený nápad
  • 2011 – 0 ; 2012 – Sudca sa zúčastnil na vzdelávacích aktivitách 2x; 2013 – Nevykazujeme účasť.
  • 2011 – 0

Published judgements

  1. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  2. Rozsudok
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  3. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  4. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  5. Rozsudok
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  6. Rozsudok
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  7. Rozsudok
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  8. Rozsudok Judgement was issued on

  9. Rozsudok
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  10. Rozsudok
    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. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zaplatenie 518,38 EUR s prísl. Hearing was held on

  2. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zaplatenie 656,14 EUR s prísl. Hearing was held on

  3. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, obnova konania Hearing was held on

  4. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, bezdôvodné obohatenie a iné Hearing was held on

  5. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zaplatenie 290,- € s prísl. Hearing was held on

  6. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, Žaloba na zaplatenie 1306,07… Hearing was held on

  7. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o zaplatenie 1426,03 EUR s… Hearing was held on

  8. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o zaplatenie 1969,14 EUR s… Hearing was held on

  9. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zaplatenie 14.698,34 € s prísl. Hearing was held on

  10. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zrušenie podielového… 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.