JUDr. Martina Koreňová

  1. Active judge at the court Okresný súd Rimavská Sobota, we register 2,065 hearings and 2,436 judgements.

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 civil agenda. Judge's decrees in 2021 were mostly from civil agenda.

Component – Quality

We register 83.51% 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 285 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 126.29% in 2021. The median amongst judges is 107,9%.
Anticipated time of the judge was based on data from 2021 103 days. Median amongst judges was 224,3 days.
In 2021 the judge decided 245 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 243.488. Median amongst judges was 248,1.
For the judge we register 68 unresolved cases at the end of 2021. From those 16.18% 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 better than 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 Civil agenda. The judge mostly issued judgements in Civil agenda.

The judge worked 1570 days in the period and was assigned on average 22 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2017, the judge received in total 33 from 40 possible points and ranked on 7 – 12. place of 651 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 13.5 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 19.5 out of 25 points

Chart 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 86.8% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 68.7%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 227
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 197

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 8.4% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 10.1%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 1.1% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3.1%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 171 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 52 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 10 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 19.2% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 173.4% 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 1110 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 34 from 40 possible points and ranked on 9 – 12. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 15 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 19 out of 25 points

Chart 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 90.1% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.1%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 151
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 136

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 0.7% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 215 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 362 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 13 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 3.6% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 109.8% 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 671 days and on average was assigned 179 cases in 10 days in main agendas.

Chart 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 65,7% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 62,9%.

  • Number of appellate judgements – 35
  • Number of confirmed judgements – 23

Odvolanie proti rozhodnutiam sudcu je podávané v približne 3,4% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 8,9%.

Z celkového počtu rozhodnutí sudcu je zmenených alebo zrušených 1,2%, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 3,3%.

Efficiency indicators

Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je 254 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.

Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 396 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.

Sudca mal na konci roka 173 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 37,6% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.

Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 111,6% prípadov. Priemer bol 99,6%.

Sudca získal podľa našej metodológie celkovo 22,75 bodov. Spomedzi 739 hodnotených sudcov sa umiestnil na 269 – 285. mieste. Za kvalitu získal 10,25 z 15 možných bodov, za efektivitu 12,5 z 25.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2013 – pracovné stretnutie sudcov obvodu Krajského súdu v Banskej Bystrici v Omšení – 2 dni, seminár "Dokazovanie, doručovanie v civilnom konaní" – Úrad priemyselného vlastníctva SR v Banskej Bystrici – 1 deň ako poslucháč
  • 2012 – vzdelávacie podujatie "Technika pojednávania, konanie na súde, kontradiktórnosť civilného procesu (BB, ZA)" – 1 deň
  • 2011 – 1 deň – seminár Aplikačné problémy OSP, predbežné opatrenia, kontradiktórnosť civilného procesu, 2 dni – seminár Spory o vlastnícke právo k nehnuteľnostiam a kataster nehnuteľností; 2012 – vzdelávacie podujatie "Technika pojednávania, konanie na súde, kontradiktórnosť civilného procesu (BB, ZA)" – 1 deň; 2013 – pracovné stretnutie sudcov obvodu Krajského súdu v Banskej Bystrici v Omšení – 2 dni, seminár "Dokazovanie, doručovanie v civilnom konaní" – Úrad priemyselného vlastníctva SR v Banskej Bystrici – 1 deň ako poslucháč
  • 2011 – 1 deň – seminár Aplikačné problémy OSP, predbežné opatrenia, kontradiktórnosť civilného procesu, 2 dni – seminár Spory o vlastnícke právo k nehnuteľnostiam a kataster nehnuteľností

Published judgements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  10. Rozsudok – Ostatné
    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 bez rozhodnutia, PR o zaplatenie 1923,85 Eur s… Hearing was held on

  2. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, PR o zaplatenie 1118,5 Eur s… Hearing was held on

  3. Verejné vyhlásenie rozsudku, PR o zaplatenie 210,69 Eur s… Hearing was held on

  4. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, PR o zaplatenie 2113,22 Eur s… Hearing was held on

  5. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, PR o zaplatenie 1 028,93 Eur s… Hearing was held on

  6. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, PR o zaplatenie 1007,72 Eur s… Hearing was held on

  7. Verejné vyhlásenie rozsudku, PR o zaplatenie 100 Eur s… Hearing was held on

  8. Verejné vyhlásenie rozsudku, PR o zaplatenie 89,9 Eur s… Hearing was held on

  9. Verejné vyhlásenie rozsudku, PR o zaplatenie 109 Eur s… Hearing was held on

  10. Verejné vyhlásenie rozsudku, PR o zaplatenie 123,4 Eur s… 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.