Ľuboš Chrenko

  1. Active judge at the court Okresný súd Topoľčany, we register 3,832 hearings and 3,520 judgements.

Close persons acknowledged in property declarations in years 2014 and 2013.

Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2014:

Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2013:

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 Civil agenda. The judge mostly issued judgements in Civil agenda.

The judge worked 1456 days in the period and was assigned on average 28 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 – 12 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 9.5 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 83.1% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 68.7%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 313
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 260

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 11.2% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 10.1%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 1.9% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3.1%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 417.1 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 152 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 82 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 53.9% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 100% 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 Civil agenda. The judge mostly issued judgements in Civil agenda.

The judge worked 1056 days in the period and was assigned on average 26 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2015, the judge received in total 23.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 286 – 303. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 10.5 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 13 out of 25 points

Quality Indicators

The judge's judgements were on appeal affirmed in 76.6% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.1%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 175
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 134

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 7.7% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 9.3%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 1.8% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 224 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 378 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 181 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 47.9% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 92.8% 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 Občiansko–právna agenda. Sudca rozhodoval najmä v Občiansko–právnej agende.

The judge in this period worked 637 days and on average was assigned 221 cases in 10 days in main agendas.

Quality indicators

Rozhodnutie sudcu bolo v prípade odvolania potvrdené v 56,7% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 62,9%.

  • Number of appellate judgements – 60
  • Number of confirmed judgements – 34

Odvolanie proti rozhodnutiam sudcu je podávané v približne 5% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 8,9%.

Z celkového počtu rozhodnutí sudcu je zmenených alebo zrušených 2,2%, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 3,3%.

Efficiency indicators

Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je 288 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.

Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 339 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.

Sudca mal na konci roka 169 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 38,5% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.

Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 86,2% prípadov. Priemer bol 99,6%.

Sudca získal podľa našej metodológie celkovo 19,5 bodov. Spomedzi 739 hodnotených sudcov sa umiestnil na 458 – 472. mieste. Za kvalitu získal 7,75 z 15 možných bodov, za efektivitu 11,75 z 25.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2013 – 6.11.2013 dokazovanie, doručovanie v civilnom konaní.
  • 2011 – –; 2013 – 6.11.2013 dokazovanie, doručovanie v civilnom konaní.

Published judgements

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

  2. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  3. Rozsudok – Spotrebiteľské zmluvy
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

  5. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

  7. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  8. Rozsudok – Spotrebiteľské zmluvy
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  9. Rozsudok – Zodpovednosť za škodu
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  10. Rozsudok – Spotrebiteľské zmluvy
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

More judgements

Upcoming hearings

  1. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o určenie neplatnosti výpovede Hearing will be held on

  2. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, o náhradu škody Hearing will be held on

  3. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, náhrada škody spôsobená… Hearing will be held on

  4. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o náhradu škody 6.068,60 Eur s… Hearing will be held on

  5. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, PR o zaplatenie 5.167,13 Eur… Hearing will be held on

  6. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o zaplatenie 91.847,82 Eur s… Hearing will be held on

  7. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, určenie vlastníckeho práva Hearing will be held on

  8. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o určenie neplatnosti skončenia… Hearing will be held on

  9. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, Vysporiadanie BSM po rozvode Hearing will be held on

  10. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o zaplatenie 266,93 Eur s… Hearing will be held on

More hearings

Past hearings

  1. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, Vysporiadanie BSM po rozvode Hearing was held on

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

  3. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zníženie výživného na dospelé… Hearing was held on

  4. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o vypratanie nehnuteľnosti Hearing was held on

  5. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o zaplatenie 14.999,19 Eur s… Hearing was held on

  6. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, určenie vlastníctva Hearing was held on

  7. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, vysporiadanie BSM Hearing was held on

  8. Verejné vyhlásenie rozsudku, o zaplatenie 70,70 Eur s… Hearing was held on

  9. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o náhradu škody 6.068,60 Eur s… Hearing was held on

  10. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o určenie neplatnosti výpovede 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.