Close persons acknowledged in property declarations in years 2012 and 2011.
Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2012:
Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2011:
Notes about the data obtained from annual statistical reports of judges.
We do not register any indicators for the judge yet.
Number of Constitutional Court decisions against the judge:
The judge was mostly assigned to Family Agenda. The judge mostly issued judgements in Family Agenda.
The judge worked 1529 days in the period and was assigned on average 145 cases per 100 days in main agendas.
In 2017, the judge received in total 21.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 317 – 344. place of 651 evaluated judges.
The judge's judgements were on appeal affirmed in 65.3% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.8%.
An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 3.2% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 7.9%.
Of the total number of the judge's judgements 1.1% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 2.5%.
Estimated average length of proceedings is 133.2 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.
The judge had 143 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.
The judge had 50 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 35% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.
In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 106.2% of assigned cases. Average was 141.8%.
Number of Constitutional Court decisions against the judge:
The judge was mostly assigned to Family Agenda. The judge mostly issued judgements in Family Agenda.
The judge worked 1085 days in the period and was assigned on average 109 cases per 100 days in main agendas.
In 2015, the judge received in total 26.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 153 – 167. place of 738 evaluated judges.
The judge's judgements were on appeal affirmed in 65.7% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.3%.
An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 3% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 7.6%.
Of the total number of the judge's judgements 1% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 2.5%.
Estimated average length of proceedings is 122 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.
The judge had 143 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.
The judge had 34 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 23.8% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.
In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 100.5% of assigned cases. Average was 97.1%.
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 agenda Starostlivosti o maloletých. Sudca rozhodoval najmä v agende Starostlivosti o maloletých.
The judge in this period worked 655 days and on average was assigned 220 cases in 10 days in main agendas.
Rozhodnutie sudcu bolo v prípade odvolania potvrdené v 62,8% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 65,5%.
Odvolanie proti rozhodnutiam sudcu je podávané v približne 3% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 7,2%.
Z celkového počtu rozhodnutí sudcu je zmenených alebo zrušených 1,1%, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 2,5%.
Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je 84 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.
Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 95 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.
Sudca mal na konci roka 21 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 20,8% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.
Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 99,8% prípadov. Priemer bol 99,6%.
Sudca získal podľa našej metodológie celkovo 29,25 bodov. Spomedzi 739 hodnotených sudcov sa umiestnil na 43 – 45. mieste. Za kvalitu získal 9,5 z 15 možných bodov, za efektivitu 19,75 z 25.
Notes about the data obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.
We do not register any upcoming hearings for the judge yet.
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.