JUDr. Adriana Konkolovská

  1. Active judge at the court Okresný súd Komárno, we register 4,807 hearings and 3,848 judgements.
  1. The judge has been nominated to function for almost 29 years, bez časového obmedzenia funkcie.

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

Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2014:

  • Generálny štátny radca Mgr. Katarína Konkolovská, Ministerstvo Vnútra Slovenskej republiky.

Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2013:

  • Generálny štátny radca Mgr. Katarína Konkolovská, Ministerstvo Vnútra Slovenskej republiky.

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges.

Indicators for 2021

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

Component – Quality

We register 57.08% 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 219 decrees concerning appeals.
In this dimension the judge belongs to the group that is worse than average.

Component – Effectivity

The judge had overal appointment of cases of 66.79% in 2021. The median amongst judges is 107,9%.
Anticipated time of the judge was based on data from 2021 309 days. Median amongst judges was 224,3 days.
In 2021 the judge decided 185 cases in the observed agendas.
In this dimension the judge belongs to the group that is worse than average.

Component – Productivity

Weighted product of the judge in 2021 was 165.02. Median amongst judges was 248,1.
For the judge we register 148 unresolved cases at the end of 2021. From those 18.92% 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 – 0
  • Delays prior to case assignment – 0

The judge was mostly assigned to Family Agenda. The judge mostly issued judgements in Family Agenda.

The judge worked 1428 days in the period and was assigned on average 117 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2017, the judge received in total 19.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 411 – 435. place of 651 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 3 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 16.5 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 53.5% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.8%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 170
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 91

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 6.8% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 7.9%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 3.1% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 2.5%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 181.8 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 127 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 44 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 34.6% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 133.5% 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 Family Agenda. The judge mostly issued judgements in Family Agenda.

The judge worked 1021 days in the period and was assigned on average 92 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2015, the judge received in total 20 from 40 possible points and ranked on 444 – 466. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 4.5 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 54.2% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.3%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 118
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 64

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 6.1% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 7.6%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 2.8% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 2.5%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 207 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 206 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 86 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 41.7% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 106.1% 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 agenda Starostlivosti o maloletých. Sudca rozhodoval najmä v agende Starostlivosti o maloletých.

The judge in this period worked 620 days and on average was assigned 182 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 46,6% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 65,5%.

  • Number of appellate judgements – 73
  • Number of confirmed judgements – 34

Odvolanie proti rozhodnutiam sudcu je podávané v približne 6,3% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 7,2%.

Z celkového počtu rozhodnutí sudcu je zmenených alebo zrušených 3,4%, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 2,5%.

Efficiency indicators

Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je 139 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.

Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 144 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.

Sudca mal na konci roka 50 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 32,7% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.

Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 91,3% prípadov. Priemer bol 99,6%.

Sudca získal podľa našej metodológie celkovo 21,75 bodov. Spomedzi 739 hodnotených sudcov sa umiestnil na 331 – 345. mieste. Za kvalitu získal 4,5 z 15 možných bodov, za efektivitu 17,25 z 25.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2013 – Sudkyňa je predsedníckou občianskoprávneho grémia, koordinuje činnosť grémia v zmysle § 15 ods. 4 písm.a/až e/ z. č. 757/2004 Z,.z. Sudkyni agenda P s vedľajšími agendami bola podľa rozvrhu práce prideľovaná v 1/2–ine, agenda D v 1/4–ine a Er v 1/9–ine do 22.10.2013 a potom v 1/10–ine.
  • 2013 – Spolu 5 pracovných dní ako poslucháč na seminároch: 4. – 5.4.13 – 7.pracovné stretnutie sudcov vybavujúcich agendu "P" 24.– 25.10.13 – 8.pracovné stretnutie sudcov vybavujúcich agendu "P" 6.12.13 – pracovná porada – konanie o návrate dieťaťa ( občianskoprávny medzinárodný únos) a o prípadoch n ásledného výkonu rozhodnutia
  • 2012 – od 15. 10.2011 predsedníčka občianskoprávneho grémia, koordinuje činnosť grémia v zmysle § 15 ods.4 písm.a/ až e/ z.č. 757/2004 Z. z. Sudkyni agenda P podľa rozvrhu práce bola prideľovaná v l/4–ine, agenda D v 1/4–ine , a Er v 1/9–ine.
  • 2012 – 5 pracovné dni ako poslucháč na seminároch: Pracovné stretnutie sudcov agendy P Odstrániteľné a neodstrániteľné vady návrhu Medzinárodné právo rodinné
  • 2011 – poslucháč – 2 pracovné dni téma Špecifiká rozhodovania o otázkach detí... ; 2012 – 5 pracovné dni ako poslucháč na seminároch: Pracovné stretnutie sudcov agendy P Odstrániteľné a neodstrániteľné vady návrhu Medzinárodné právo rodinné; 2013 – Spolu 5 pracovných dní ako poslucháč na seminároch: 4. – 5.4.13 – 7.pracovné stretnutie sudcov vybavujúcich agendu "P" 24.– 25.10.13 – 8.pracovné stretnutie sudcov vybavujúcich agendu "P" 6.12.13 – pracovná porada – konanie o návrate dieťaťa ( občianskoprávny medzinárodný únos) a o prípadoch n ásledného výkonu rozhodnutia
  • 2011 – poslucháč – 2 pracovné dni téma Špecifiká rozhodovania o otázkach detí...
  • 2011 – od 15. 10.2011 zvolená do funkcie predsedníčky občianskoprávneho grémia, koordinuje činnosť grémia v zmysle § 15 ods.4,písm.a/až e / z. č. 757/2004 Z.z.; 2012 – od 15. 10.2011 predsedníčka občianskoprávneho grémia, koordinuje činnosť grémia v zmysle § 15 ods.4 písm.a/ až e/ z.č. 757/2004 Z. z. Sudkyni agenda P podľa rozvrhu práce bola prideľovaná v l/4–ine, agenda D v 1/4–ine , a Er v 1/9–ine. ; 2013 – Sudkyňa je predsedníckou občianskoprávneho grémia, koordinuje činnosť grémia v zmysle § 15 ods. 4 písm.a/až e/ z. č. 757/2004 Z,.z. Sudkyni agenda P s vedľajšími agendami bola podľa rozvrhu práce prideľovaná v 1/2–ine, agenda D v 1/4–ine a Er v 1/9–ine do 22.10.2013 a potom v 1/10–ine.
  • 2011 – od 15. 10.2011 zvolená do funkcie predsedníčky občianskoprávneho grémia, koordinuje činnosť grémia v zmysle § 15 ods.4,písm.a/až e / z. č. 757/2004 Z.z.

Published judgements

  1. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  2. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

  4. Uznesenie – Exekúcia a výkon rozhodnutí
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

  6. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  7. Rozsudok – Starostlivosť o maloletých
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  8. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  9. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  10. Uznesenie – Exekúcia a výkon rozhodnutí
    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. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, úprava výkonu rodičovských práv… Hearing was held on

  2. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zmena úpravy výkonu… Hearing was held on

  3. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zmena priezviska Hearing was held on

  4. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, určenie otcovstva Hearing was held on

  5. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, určenie otcovstva a úprava… Hearing was held on

  6. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, rozvod manželstva Hearing was held on

  7. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, vrátenie spôsobilosti na právne… Hearing was held on

  8. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, priznanie rodičovských práv a… Hearing was held on

  9. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, výkon rozhodnutia Hearing was held on

  10. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zmena úpravy rodičovských práv… 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.