JUDr. Andrea Kondllová

  1. Active judge at the court Krajský súd Trnava, in the meantime we register no hearings and 31 judgements.
  2. Inactive judge at the court Okresný súd Trnava, we register 132 hearings and 2,500 judgements.
  3. Inactive judge at the court Okresný súd Piešťany, we register 1,964 hearings and no judgements.
  1. The judge has been nominated to function for more than 17 years.

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges.

Indicators for 2021

Overall evaluation of the judge is excellent.
Incoming cases for the judge in 2021 were mostly from criminal agenda. Judge's decrees in 2021 were mostly from criminal agenda.

Component – Quality

We register 82.25% decrees for the judge, which are confirmed by the higher court in case of an appeal. The median amongst judges is 68,9%. We register 338 decrees concerning appeals.
In this dimension the judge belongs to the group that is better than average.

Component – Effectivity

The judge had overal appointment of cases of 117.65% in 2021. The median amongst judges is 107,9%.
Anticipated time of the judge was based on data from 2021 104 days. Median amongst judges was 224,3 days.
In 2021 the judge decided 280 cases in the observed agendas.
In this dimension the judge belongs to the group that is better than average.

Component – Productivity

Weighted product of the judge in 2021 was 278.375. Median amongst judges was 248,1.
For the judge we register 71 unresolved cases at the end of 2021. From those 46.48% are restant cases. Median amongst judges was 39,34% of restant cases from the total number of unresolved cases.
In this dimension the judge belongs to the group that is average.

Overall Evaluation
Evaluation on a scale from 0 to 10.

Indicators for 2017

Number of Constitutional Court decisions against the judge:

  • Issued – 5
  • Delays prior to case assignment – 3

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

The judge worked 1428 days in the period and was assigned on average 45 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2017, the judge received in total 26.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 99 – 112. place of 651 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 10.5 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 16 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 79.3% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 68.7%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 164
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 130

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 9.7% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 10.1%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 2% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3.1%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 117 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 42 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 18 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 42.9% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 115.9% of assigned cases. Average was 141.8%.

Indicators for 2015

Number of Constitutional Court decisions against the judge:

  • Issued – 5
  • Delays prior to case assignment – 3

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

The judge worked 992 days in the period and was assigned on average 36 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2015, the judge received in total 20.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 417 – 443. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 9 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 11.5 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 71.9% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.1%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 96
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 69

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 7.1% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 9.3%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 2% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 400 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 126 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 85 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 67.5% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 109.5% of assigned cases. Average was 97.1%.

Indicators for 2013

The number of Constitutional court judgements against the judges – issued 2 and delays prior to case assignment 1.

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 641 days and on average was assigned 209 cases in 10 days in main agendas.

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

Rozhodnutie sudcu bolo v prípade odvolania potvrdené v 69,6% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 62,9%.

  • Number of appellate judgements – 69
  • Number of confirmed judgements – 48

Odvolanie proti rozhodnutiam sudcu je podávané v približne 6,6% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 8,9%.

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

Efficiency indicators

Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je 414 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.

Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 272 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.

Sudca mal na konci roka 233 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 79,3% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.

Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 123,1% prípadov. Priemer bol 99,6%.

Sudca získal podľa našej metodológie celkovo 18 bodov. Spomedzi 739 hodnotených sudcov sa umiestnil na 519 – 534. mieste. Za kvalitu získal 9,5 z 15 možných bodov, za efektivitu 8,5 z 25.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2013 – výkon funkcie podpredsedníčky súdu od 01.01.2013 do 31.05.2013 výkon funkcie predsedníčky súdu od 01.06.2013
  • 2013 – 24.4.2013 – Justičná akadémia Pezinok – "Ochrana spotrebiteľa" – 1 deň 5. – 7.6.2013 – Inštitút Omšenie – porada sudcov – 3 dni 30.10.2013 – Justičná akadémia Pezinok – "Rozvod (výška výživného....)" – 1 deň
  • 2012 – 5.12.2012 "Striedavá osobná starostlivosť, psychologické aspekty" – Justičná akadémia Pezinok
  • 2011 – Zákon 757/2004 Z.z. o súdoch a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov – §51 ods. 4 písm. c/ ; 2013 – výkon funkcie podpredsedníčky súdu od 01.01.2013 do 31.05.2013 výkon funkcie predsedníčky súdu od 01.06.2013
  • 2011 – Zákon 757/2004 Z.z. o súdoch a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov – §51 ods. 4 písm. c/
  • 2011 – 22.3.2011 – "Aplikačné problémy OSP, predbežné opatrenia, kontradiktórnosť civilného procesu" 19.4.2011 – "Vysporiadanie podielového a bezpodielového vlastníctva"; 2012 – 5.12.2012 "Striedavá osobná starostlivosť, psychologické aspekty" – Justičná akadémia Pezinok; 2013 – 24.4.2013 – Justičná akadémia Pezinok – "Ochrana spotrebiteľa" – 1 deň 5. – 7.6.2013 – Inštitút Omšenie – porada sudcov – 3 dni 30.10.2013 – Justičná akadémia Pezinok – "Rozvod (výška výživného....)" – 1 deň
  • 2011 – 22.3.2011 – "Aplikačné problémy OSP, predbežné opatrenia, kontradiktórnosť civilného procesu" 19.4.2011 – "Vysporiadanie podielového a bezpodielového vlastníctva"

Published judgements

  1. Uznesenie – Majetok
    Potvrdzujúce
    Judgement was issued on

  2. Uznesenie – Ostatné
    Potvrdzujúce
    Judgement was issued on

  3. Rozsudok – Majetok
    Zmeňujúce
    Judgement was issued on

  4. Uznesenie – Rodina a mládež
    Potvrdzujúce
    Judgement was issued on

  5. Rozsudok – Rodina a mládež
    Zmeňujúce
    Judgement was issued on

  6. Uznesenie – Iné práva a slobody
    Potvrdzujúce
    Judgement was issued on

  7. Uznesenie – Ostatné
    Potvrdzujúce
    Judgement was issued on

  8. Uznesenie – Ostatné
    Potvrdzujúce
    Judgement was issued on

  9. Uznesenie – Ostatné
    Potvrdzujúce
    Judgement was issued on

  10. Rozsudok – Majetok
    Zmeňujúce
    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, obžaloba Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Trnava
    Judge – JUDr. Andrea Kondllová
    Defendants – A. Q. and Y. M.
  2. Verejné zasadnutie bez rozhodnutia, obžaloba Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Trnava
    Judge – JUDr. Andrea Kondllová
    Defendant – F. U.
  3. Verejné zasadnutie bez rozhodnutia, Obžaloba Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Trnava
    Judge – JUDr. Andrea Kondllová
    Defendant – G. C.
  4. Verejné zasadnutie bez rozhodnutia, Obžaloba Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Trnava
    Judge – JUDr. Andrea Kondllová
    Defendant – V. R.
  5. Hlavné pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, Obžaloba Hearing was held on

  6. Verejné zasadnutie bez rozhodnutia, podmienečné prepustenie Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Trnava
    Judge – JUDr. Andrea Kondllová
    Defendant – X. G.
  7. Verejné zasadnutie bez rozhodnutia, podmienečné prepustenie Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Trnava
    Judge – JUDr. Andrea Kondllová
    Defendant – C. D.
  8. Verejné zasadnutie s rozhodnutím, podmienečné prepustenie Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Trnava
    Judge – JUDr. Andrea Kondllová
    Defendant – U. A.
  9. Verejné zasadnutie bez rozhodnutia, preradenie Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Trnava
    Judge – JUDr. Andrea Kondllová
    Defendant – M. U.
  10. Verejné zasadnutie bez rozhodnutia, preradenie Hearing was held on

    Court – Okresný súd Trnava
    Judge – JUDr. Andrea Kondllová
    Defendant – S. Q.
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.