Mgr. Renáta Krajčiová

  1. Active judge at the court Okresný súd Ružomberok, we register 1,525 hearings and 1,023 judgements.
  1. The judge has been nominated to function for more than 27 years, 4 - ročný mandát.

Indicators for 2021

Overall evaluation of the judge is above average.
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 65.98% 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 341 decrees concerning appeals.
In this dimension the judge belongs to the group that is average.

Component – Effectivity

The judge had overal appointment of cases of 123.24% in 2021. The median amongst judges is 107,9%.
Anticipated time of the judge was based on data from 2021 195 days. Median amongst judges was 224,3 days.
In 2021 the judge decided 175 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 170.248. Median amongst judges was 248,1.
For the judge we register 95 unresolved cases at the end of 2021. From those 32.63% 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 Civil agenda. The judge mostly issued judgements in Civil agenda.

The judge worked 1470 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 22 from 40 possible points and ranked on 285 – 316. place of 651 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 7.5 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 14.5 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 65.7% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 68.7%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 242
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 159

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 12.4% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 10.1%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 4.3% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3.1%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 181.2 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 68 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 28 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 41.2% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 103.8% 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 1065 days in the period and was assigned on average 38 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2015, the judge received in total 22.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 324 – 344. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 7.5 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 15 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 68.1% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.1%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 188
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 128

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 12% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 9.3%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 3.8% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 166 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 135 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 31 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 23% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 83.7% 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 639 days and on average was assigned 148 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 67,2% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 62,9%.

  • Number of appellate judgements – 119
  • Number of confirmed judgements – 80

Odvolanie proti rozhodnutiam sudcu je podávané v približne 12,3% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 8,9%.

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

Efficiency indicators

Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je 119 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.

Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 116 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.

Sudca mal na konci roka 53 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 34% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.

Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 113,8% prípadov. Priemer bol 99,6%.

Sudca získal podľa našej metodológie celkovo 25 bodov. Spomedzi 739 hodnotených sudcov sa umiestnil na 164 – 177. mieste. Za kvalitu získal 6,75 z 15 možných bodov, za efektivitu 18,25 z 25.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2013 – 13.6.2013 – 14.6.2013 Zabezpečovanie záväzkov, záložné právo, zabezpečovacive prevody práva 22.4.2013 – 23.4.2013 Spory o vlastnícke právo k nehnuteľnostiam a kataster nehnuteľností 29.4.2013 Nové európske trendy v starostlivosti o deti po rozvode rodičov
  • 2012 – 6.2.2012 – Najnovšia judikatúra ESĽP a jej dôsledky na rozhodovaciu činnosť, 25.4.2012 – Odstrániteľné/neodstrániteľné vady návrhu, 4.6.2012 – Efektívne využitie počítača, internetu a právnických vyhľadávačov, 9.11.2012 – Striedavá osobná starostlivosť.
  • 2011 – 2x – školenie; 2012 – 6.2.2012 – Najnovšia judikatúra ESĽP a jej dôsledky na rozhodovaciu činnosť, 25.4.2012 – Odstrániteľné/neodstrániteľné vady návrhu, 4.6.2012 – Efektívne využitie počítača, internetu a právnických vyhľadávačov, 9.11.2012 – Striedavá osobná starostlivosť.; 2013 – 13.6.2013 – 14.6.2013 Zabezpečovanie záväzkov, záložné právo, zabezpečovacive prevody práva 22.4.2013 – 23.4.2013 Spory o vlastnícke právo k nehnuteľnostiam a kataster nehnuteľností 29.4.2013 Nové európske trendy v starostlivosti o deti po rozvode rodičov
  • 2011 – 2x – školenie

Published judgements

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

  2. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

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

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

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

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

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

  9. Uznesenie – Exekúcia a výkon rozhodnutí
    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, Zrušenie ústavnej… Hearing was held on

  2. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, Úprava výkonu rod. práv a… Hearing was held on

  3. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zmena osobnej starostlivosti Hearing was held on

  4. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, náhrada nemajetkovej ujmy Hearing was held on

  5. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, Zvýšenie výživného Hearing was held on

  6. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, náhrada nemajetkovej ujmy Hearing was held on

  7. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, Zaplatenie 200 € s prísl. Hearing was held on

  8. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, Určovacia žaloba. Hearing was held on

  9. Verejné vyhlásenie rozsudku, O zaplatenie 1.001,03 Eur s… Hearing was held on

  10. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, určenie otcovstva 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.