JUDr. Eva Foltánová

  1. Active judge at the court Okresný súd Galanta, we register 4,221 hearings and 4,109 judgements.

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges.

Indicators for 2017

Number of Constitutional Court decisions against the judge:

  • Issued – 2
  • Delays prior to case assignment – 0

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

The judge worked 1176 days in the period and was assigned on average 50 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 – 4.5 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 18.5 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 58.8% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 68.7%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 233
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 137

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 7.1% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 10.1%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 2.9% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3.1%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 246.4 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 212 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 148 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 69.8% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 268.4% 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 – 0

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

The judge worked 793 days in the period and was assigned on average 46 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2015, the judge received in total 16.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 576 – 590. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 0 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 16.5 out of 25 points

Quality Indicators

The judge's judgements were on appeal affirmed in 42.3% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.1%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 123
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 52

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 5.8% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 9.3%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 3.4% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 226 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 652 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 184 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 28.2% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 105.7% 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 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 573 days and on average was assigned 155 cases in 10 days in main agendas.

Quality indicators

Rozhodnutie sudcu bolo v prípade odvolania potvrdené v 59,3% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 62,9%.

  • Number of appellate judgements – 54
  • Number of confirmed judgements – 32

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 2,1%, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 3,3%.

Efficiency indicators

Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je –66 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.

Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených –69 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.

Dáta o reštančných prípadoch považujeme za málo reprezentatívne a preto ich neprezentujeme.

Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 220,2% prípadov. Priemer bol 99,6%.

Dáta o kvalite a efektivite sudcu nepovažujeme za dostatočné, preto sudcu bodovo nehodnotíme.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2012 – v časovom rozpätí od 1.1.2012 do 31.3.2012 mala znížený nápad z dôvodu výkonu funkcie predsedníčky Okresného súdu Galanta
  • 2011 – V zmysle § 35 ods. 3 Zák. č. 757/2004 Z.z. mala predsedníčka súdu znížený nápad na 20%.; 2012 – v časovom rozpätí od 1.1.2012 do 31.3.2012 mala znížený nápad z dôvodu výkonu funkcie predsedníčky Okresného súdu Galanta
  • 2011 – V zmysle § 35 ods. 3 Zák. č. 757/2004 Z.z. mala predsedníčka súdu znížený nápad na 20%.

Published judgements

  1. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

  3. Rozsudok – Nájom a podnájom nebytových priestorov
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  4. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

  6. Uznesenie Judgement was issued on

  7. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

  9. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  10. Uznesenie – Kúpna zmluva
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

More judgements

Upcoming hearings

  1. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, určenie neúčinnosti darovacej… Hearing will be held on

  2. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, o zapl. 7 488,34 € s prísl. Hearing will be held on

  3. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, o usporiadanie pomerov stavby… Hearing will be held on

  4. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, o zaplatenie 8917,62 Eur s… Hearing will be held on

  5. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, finančné odškodnenie Hearing will be held on

  6. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, o zaplatenie 86532 Eur s… Hearing will be held on

  7. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, o zaplatenie 13359 Eur s… Hearing will be held on

  8. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, Žaloba o určenie,že… Hearing will be held on

  9. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, Žaloba na náhrad. škody na… Hearing will be held on

  10. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, o zaplatenie 4905 Eur s… Hearing will be held on

More hearings

Past hearings

  1. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, o zaplatenie 6292,31 Eur s… Hearing was held on

  2. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, Žaloba o zaplatenie sumy… Hearing was held on

  3. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, Žaloba na vypratanie… Hearing was held on

  4. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, Návrh na nahradenie prejavu… Hearing was held on

  5. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, žaloba o určenie neplatnosti… Hearing was held on

  6. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o zaplatenie 1950,65 Eur s… Hearing was held on

  7. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, Návrh na vyporiadanie BSM Hearing was held on

  8. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, o zaplatenie 13359 Eur s… Hearing was held on

  9. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, Návrh na vydanie platobného… Hearing was held on

  10. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, Žaloba o vyporiadanie… 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.