JUDr. Martin Kollár

  1. Active judge at the court Okresný súd Zvolen, we register 1,452 hearings and 1,648 judgements.
  1. The judge has been nominated to function for about 14 years.

Close persons acknowledged in property declarations in years 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2014:

Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2013:

Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2012:

Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2011:

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 1502 days in the period and was assigned on average 113 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2017, the judge received in total 17 from 40 possible points and ranked on 525 – 538. place of 651 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 1.5 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 48.9% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 66%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 333
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 163

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 12.5% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 8.7%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 6.4% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 2.9%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 127.7 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 128 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 72 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 56.3% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 115.1% 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 1076 days in the period and was assigned on average 83 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2015, the judge received in total 18 from 40 possible points and ranked on 525 – 541. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 1.5 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 16.5 out of 25 points

Quality Indicators

The judge's judgements were on appeal affirmed in 46.2% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 63.8%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 247
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 114

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 12.8% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 8.1%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 6.9% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 122 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 133 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 70 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 52.6% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 103.9% 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 660 days and on average was assigned 117 cases in 10 days in main agendas.

Quality indicators

Rozhodnutie sudcu bolo v prípade odvolania potvrdené v 32% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 52,3%.

  • Number of appellate judgements – 128
  • Number of confirmed judgements – 41

Odvolanie proti rozhodnutiam sudcu je podávané v približne 14,6% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 8,4%.

Z celkového počtu rozhodnutí sudcu je zmenených alebo zrušených 9,9%, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 4%.

Efficiency indicators

Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je 84 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.

Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 66 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.

Sudca mal na konci roka 82 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 66,1% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.

Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 119,5% prípadov. Priemer bol 99,6%.

Sudca získal podľa našej metodológie celkovo 18,75 bodov. Spomedzi 739 hodnotených sudcov sa umiestnil na 490 – 500. mieste. Za kvalitu získal 2 z 15 možných bodov, za efektivitu 16,75 z 25.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2012 – 26. 04. 2012 – pracovné stretnutie sudcov obvodu Krajského súdu v Banskej Bystrici 21. 05. 2012 – pracovné stretnutie sudcov Okresného súdu Zvolen
  • 2011 – Žiadna; 2012 – 26. 04. 2012 – pracovné stretnutie sudcov obvodu Krajského súdu v Banskej Bystrici 21. 05. 2012 – pracovné stretnutie sudcov Okresného súdu Zvolen; 2013 – –––
  • 2011 – Žiadna
  • 2011 – –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––; 2013 – –––
  • 2011 – –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Published judgements

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

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

  5. Rozsudok – Majetok
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  6. Rozsudok – Hospodárske trestné činy
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  7. Rozsudok – Majetok
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  8. Rozsudok – Iné práva a slobody
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

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

More judgements

Upcoming hearings

We do not register any upcoming hearings for the judge yet.

Past hearings

  1. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, podľa § 208 ods. 1… Hearing was held on

  2. Hlavné pojednávanie s rozhodnutím, podľa § 156 ods 1 ods 2… Hearing was held on

  3. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, podľa § 207 odsek 1… Hearing was held on

  4. Hlavné pojednávanie s rozhodnutím, podľa § 172 ods 1 písm.… Hearing was held on

  5. Verejné zasadnutie s rozhodnutím, podľa § 212 ods. 2 písm.… Hearing was held on

  6. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, podľa § 207 odsek 1… Hearing was held on

  7. Verejné zasadnutie s rozhodnutím, podľa § 156 ods 1 ods. 2… Hearing was held on

  8. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, podľa §360a ods. 1… Hearing was held on

  9. Verejné zasadnutie s rozhodnutím, podľa § 212 ods. 2 písm.… Hearing was held on

  10. Verejné zasadnutie s rozhodnutím, podľa § 289 ods. 1 Tr.… 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.