Mgr. Stella Al Khufash

  1. Active judge at the court Okresný súd Senica, we register 2,469 hearings and 4,578 judgements.
  1. The judge has been nominated to function for more than 21 years, bez časového obmedzenia funkcie.
  2. The judge has been nominated to function for more than 25 years.

Close persons acknowledged in property declarations in years 2014.

Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2014:

Indicators for 2017

Number of Constitutional Court decisions against the judge:

  • Issued – 4
  • 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 1504 days in the period and was assigned on average 46 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2017, the judge received in total 16.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 539 – 548. place of 651 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 1.5 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 15 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 48% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 68.7%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 173
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 83

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 6.2% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 10.1%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 3.2% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3.1%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 224.2 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 180 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 106 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 58.9% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 169.4% 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 – 0

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

The judge worked 1094 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 15 from 40 possible points and ranked on 623 – 638. place of 738 evaluated judges.

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

Quality Indicators

The judge's judgements were on appeal affirmed in 40.2% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.1%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 122
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 49

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 6.1% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 9.3%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 3.7% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 249 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 464 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 155 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 33.4% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 100.1% 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 653 days and on average was assigned 144 cases in 10 days in main agendas.

Quality indicators

Rozhodnutie sudcu bolo v prípade odvolania potvrdené v 57,8% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 62,9%.

  • Number of appellate judgements – 45
  • Number of confirmed judgements – 26

Odvolanie proti rozhodnutiam sudcu je podávané v približne 4,5% 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 257 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.

Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 171 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.

Sudca mal na konci roka 73 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 38,6% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.

Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 97,2% prípadov. Priemer bol 99,6%.

Sudca získal podľa našej metodológie celkovo 23,5 bodov. Spomedzi 739 hodnotených sudcov sa umiestnil na 233 – 240. mieste. Za kvalitu získal 8,5 z 15 možných bodov, za efektivitu 15 z 25.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2013 – 5.6. – 7.6.2013 – 3 dni Omšenie (celokrajská porada sudcov).
  • 2012 – 23.5.–25.5.2012 – 3 dni (Omšenie–celokrajská porada sudcov); 2013 – 5.6. – 7.6.2013 – 3 dni Omšenie (celokrajská porada sudcov).
  • 2012 – 23.5.–25.5.2012 – 3 dni (Omšenie–celokrajská porada sudcov)

Published judgements

  1. Rozsudok – Vyživovacie povinnosti
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

  3. Rozsudok – Bezpodielové spoluvlastníctvo manželov
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  4. Rozsudok – Rozvod
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  5. Uznesenie
    Iná povaha rozhodnutia
    Judgement was issued on

  6. Uznesenie
    Iná povaha rozhodnutia
    Judgement was issued on

  7. Uznesenie
    Iná povaha rozhodnutia
    Judgement was issued on

  8. Uznesenie
    Iná povaha rozhodnutia
    Judgement was issued on

  9. Uznesenie
    Iná povaha rozhodnutia
    Judgement was issued on

  10. Uznesenie
    Iná povaha rozhodnutia
    Judgement was issued on

More judgements

Upcoming hearings

  1. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, vyrovnanie BSM po rozvode Hearing will be held on

  2. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, o zaplatenie 1495.53 EUR s… Hearing will be held on

  3. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, Návrh na vydanie PR -… Hearing will be held on

  4. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, vyrovnanie BSM po rozvode Hearing will be held on

  5. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, Návrh na vydanie PR - 3000,-… Hearing will be held on

  6. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, Návrh na vydanie PR -… Hearing will be held on

  7. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, vyrovnanie BSM po rozvode +… Hearing will be held on

  8. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, návrh na rozvod Hearing will be held on

  9. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, Návrh na vydanie PR -… Hearing will be held on

  10. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, výchovné opatrenie Hearing will be held on

More hearings

Past hearings

  1. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, vyrovnanie BSM po rozvode Hearing was held on

  2. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zvýšenie výživného na plnoleté… Hearing was held on

  3. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, schválenie právneho úkonu za… Hearing was held on

  4. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, návrh na vydanie PR - 17… Hearing was held on

  5. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, obmedzenie spôsobilosti na… Hearing was held on

  6. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, Žaloba na určenie vlastníckeho… Hearing was held on

  7. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, zrušenie výživného na… Hearing was held on

  8. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, určenie vlastníckeho práva k… Hearing was held on

  9. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, obmedzenie spôsobilosti na… Hearing was held on

  10. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, vyrovnanie BSM po rozvode +… 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.