JUDr. Slavomír Harmóci

  1. Active judge at the court Okresný súd Michalovce, we register 2,650 hearings and 1,648 judgements.
  1. The judge has been nominated to function for almost 16 years.

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 1570 days in the period and was assigned on average 134 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2017, the judge received in total 24 from 40 possible points and ranked on 201 – 223. place of 651 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 6 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 18 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 63% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 66%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 73
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 46

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 2.3% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 8.7%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 0.9% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 2.9%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 46.2 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 60 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 4 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 6.7% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 103.7% 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 1116 days in the period and was assigned on average 96 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2015, the judge received in total 28.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 91 – 106. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 7.5 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 21 out of 25 points

Quality Indicators

The judge's judgements were on appeal affirmed in 66.1% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 63.8%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 56
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 37

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 2.5% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 8.1%.

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 47 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 56 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 4 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 7.1% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 104.3% 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 Trestná agenda. Sudca rozhodoval najmä v Trestnej agende.

The judge in this period worked 682 days and on average was assigned 129 cases in 10 days in main agendas.

Quality indicators

Rozhodnutie sudcu bolo v prípade odvolania potvrdené v 64,9% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 52,3%.

  • Number of appellate judgements – 37
  • Number of confirmed judgements – 24

Odvolanie proti rozhodnutiam sudcu je podávané v približne 3,8% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 8,4%.

Z celkového počtu rozhodnutí sudcu je zmenených alebo zrušených 1,3%, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 4%.

Efficiency indicators

Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je 50 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.

Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 47 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.

Sudca mal na konci roka 10 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 20% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.

Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 108,5% prípadov. Priemer bol 99,6%.

Sudca získal podľa našej metodológie celkovo 32,25 bodov. Spomedzi 739 hodnotených sudcov sa umiestnil na 9 – 11. mieste. Za kvalitu získal 11,75 z 15 možných bodov, za efektivitu 20,5 z 25.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2012 – 6.12.2012 – odborný seminár sudcov (Krajský súd v Košiciach)
  • 2012 – 6.12.2012 – odborný seminár sudcov (Krajský súd v Košiciach)

Published judgements

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

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

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

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

  5. Trestný rozkaz – Hospodárske trestné činy
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

  7. Trestný rozkaz – Rodina a mládež
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  8. Rozsudok Judgement was issued on

  9. Trestný rozkaz – Sloboda a ľudská dôstojnosť
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

More judgements

Upcoming hearings

  1. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, prečin… Hearing will be held on

  2. Verejné zasadnutie bez rozhodnutia, zločin krádeže § 20 §… Hearing will be held on

  3. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, prečin… Hearing will be held on

  4. Verejné zasadnutie bez rozhodnutia, prečin ublíž.na zdraví… Hearing will be held on

  5. Verejné zasadnutie bez rozhodnutia, Obžaloba Hearing will be held on

  6. Verejné zasadnutie bez rozhodnutia, prečin nebezp.vyhráž. §… Hearing will be held on

  7. Verejné zasadnutie bez rozhodnutia, Obžaloba Hearing will be held on

  8. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, prečin usmrtenia § 149… Hearing will be held on

  9. Verejné zasadnutie bez rozhodnutia, zločin krádeže § 20 §… Hearing will be held on

  10. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, prečin poruš.ochrany… Hearing will be held on

More hearings

Past hearings

  1. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, prečin poškodz.a… Hearing was held on

  2. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, prečin ublíž.na zdraví… Hearing was held on

  3. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, zločin skrátenie dane… Hearing was held on

  4. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, prečin krádeže § 20 §… Hearing was held on

  5. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, prečin pytliactvo §… Hearing was held on

  6. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, prečin krádeže § 212… Hearing was held on

  7. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, zločin sexuálne… Hearing was held on

  8. Verejné zasadnutie bez rozhodnutia, Obžaloba Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Michalovce
    Judge – JUDr. Slavomír Harmóci
    Defendant – N. A.
  9. Verejné zasadnutie bez rozhodnutia, Obžaloba Hearing was held on

  10. Verejné zasadnutie bez rozhodnutia, Obžaloba 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.