JUDr. Vladimír Hric

  1. Active judge at the court Okresný súd Poprad, we register 2,801 hearings and 1,494 judgements.
    Note: .

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges.

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 1482 days in the period and was assigned on average 107 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2017, the judge received in total 21.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 317 – 344. place of 651 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 6 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 63.2% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 66%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 133
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 84

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 5.7% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 8.7%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 2.1% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 2.9%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 90.1 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 81 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 43 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 53.1% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 97% 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 1075 days in the period and was assigned on average 76 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2015, the judge received in total 22.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 324 – 344. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 6 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 16.5 out of 25 points

Quality Indicators

The judge's judgements were on appeal affirmed in 62.9% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 63.8%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 105
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 66

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 6.2% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 8.1%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 2.3% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 101 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 86 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 48 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 55.8% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 100.3% 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:

Sudcovi bola prideľovaná najmä Trestná agenda. Sudca rozhodoval najmä v Trestnej agende.

The judge in this period worked 217 days and on average was assigned 85 cases in 10 days in main agendas.

Quality indicators

Evidujeme menej ako 10 odvolaní o rozhodnutiach sudcu, preto dáta považujeme za nereprezentatívne.

Efficiency indicators

Pre sudcu evidujeme menej ako 20 rozhodnutí, preto jeho efektivitu nehodnotíme.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2011 – Jednodňový seminár – Aplikácia nových trestnoprávnych noriem v rozhodovacej činnosti, Stará Lesná, október 2011,
  • 2011 – Jednodňový seminár – Aplikácia nových trestnoprávnych noriem v rozhodovacej činnosti, Stará Lesná, október 2011,

Published judgements

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

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

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

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

  5. Uznesenie – Majetok
    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 – Všeobecne nebezpečné a proti…
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

  9. Trestný rozkaz – Život a zdravie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

More judgements

Upcoming hearings

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

    Court – Okresný súd Poprad
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Hric
    Defendant – C. L.
  2. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, prečin krádeže § 212… Hearing will be held on

    Court – Okresný súd Poprad
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Hric
    Defendant – N. V.
  3. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, zločin podvodu §… Hearing will be held on

    Court – Okresný súd Poprad
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Hric
    Defendant – K. B.
  4. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, prečin § 157 ods. 1,2)… Hearing will be held on

    Court – Okresný súd Poprad
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Hric
    Defendant – C. B.
More hearings

Past hearings

  1. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, prečin podvodu § 250… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Poprad
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Hric
    Defendant – I. Q.
  2. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, prečin podvodu §… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Poprad
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Hric
    Defendant – N. P.
  3. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, prečin § 270 ods.… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Poprad
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Hric
    Defendant – Z. P.
  4. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, prečin porušovania… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Poprad
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Hric
    Defendant – S. O.
  5. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, zločin § 183/1,2a)Tr.… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Poprad
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Hric
    Defendant – I. R.
  6. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, prečin ublíženia na… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Poprad
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Hric
    Defendant – D. W.
  7. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, zločin ublíženia na… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Poprad
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Hric
    Defendant – O. M.
  8. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, prečin krivej výpovede… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Poprad
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Hric
    Defendant – O. P.
  9. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, pokračovací zločin §… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Poprad
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Hric
    Defendant – K. H.
  10. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, zločin § 188 ods.… Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Poprad
    Judge – JUDr. Vladimír Hric
    Defendant – H. M.
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.