JUDr. Katarína Krivulčíková

  1. Active vice chairman at the court Okresný súd Trenčín, we register 71 hearings and 17 judgements.
    Note: .
  2. Inactive chairman at the court Okresný súd Považská Bystrica, we register 4,109 hearings and 3,619 judgements.
    Note: .
  1. The judge has been nominated to function for more than 18 years.

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges.

Indicators for 2021

Overall evaluation of the judge is 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 68.14% 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 408 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 116.23% in 2021. The median amongst judges is 107,9%.
Anticipated time of the judge was based on data from 2021 202 days. Median amongst judges was 224,3 days.
In 2021 the judge decided 179 cases in the observed agendas.
In this dimension the judge belongs to the group that is average.

Component – Productivity

Weighted product of the judge in 2021 was 167.521. Median amongst judges was 248,1.
For the judge we register 88 unresolved cases at the end of 2021. From those 38.64% 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 1492 days in the period and was assigned on average 46 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2017, the judge received in total 21 from 40 possible points and ranked on 345 – 368. place of 651 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 7.5 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 13.5 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 69.1% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 68.7%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 301
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 208

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 11.4% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 10.1%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 3.5% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3.1%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 202.4 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 107 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 39 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 36.4% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 106% 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 1068 days in the period and was assigned on average 39 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2015, the judge received in total 26 from 40 possible points and ranked on 168 – 193. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 9 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 17 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 69.8% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.1%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 212
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 148

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 10.6% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 9.3%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 3.2% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 164 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 248 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 66 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 26.6% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 100.2% 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 641 days and on average was assigned 165 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 72,4% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 62,9%.

  • Number of appellate judgements – 87
  • Number of confirmed judgements – 63

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

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

Efficiency indicators

Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je 243 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.

Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 268 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.

Sudca mal na konci roka 122 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 43% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.

Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 97,6% 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 9,75 z 15 možných bodov, za efektivitu 13 z 25.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2013 – 4.4.2013 . 7.pracovné stretnutie sudcov vybavujúcich agendu P, Inštitút vzdelávania MS SR Omšenie
  • 2012 – 12.6.2012– Seminár: Efektívne využitie počítača, pozícia poslucháča, 1 deň; 25.9.–.26.9.2012 školenie sudcov z obvodu Krajského súdu Trenčín, pozícia poslucháča, 2 dni; 25.10.2012 – 6.pracovné stretnutie sudcov vybavujúcich agendu P, pozícia poslucháča, 1 deň;
  • 2011 – 11.–12.10.2011 – Školenie sudcov z obvodu KS Trenčín, pozícia poslucháča, 2 dni;; 2012 – 12.6.2012– Seminár: Efektívne využitie počítača, pozícia poslucháča, 1 deň; 25.9.–.26.9.2012 školenie sudcov z obvodu Krajského súdu Trenčín, pozícia poslucháča, 2 dni; 25.10.2012 – 6.pracovné stretnutie sudcov vybavujúcich agendu P, pozícia poslucháča, 1 deň;; 2013 – 4.4.2013 . 7.pracovné stretnutie sudcov vybavujúcich agendu P, Inštitút vzdelávania MS SR Omšenie
  • 2011 – 11.–12.10.2011 – Školenie sudcov z obvodu KS Trenčín, pozícia poslucháča, 2 dni;

Published judgements

  1. Rozhodnutie – Vyživovacie povinnosti
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  2. Rozhodnutie – Starostlivosť o maloletých
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

  4. Rozhodnutie – Rozvod
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

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

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

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

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

  10. Rozsudok – Starostlivosť o maloletých
    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, rozvod manželstva Hearing was held on

  2. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zapretie otcovstva Hearing was held on

  3. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zníženie výživného na plnoleté… Hearing was held on

  4. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o zaplatenie 86,32 Eur s… Hearing was held on

  5. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, úprava práv a povinností k mal.… Hearing was held on

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

  7. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zvýšenie vyživovacej povinnosti Hearing was held on

  8. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zmena úpravy styku a zvýšenie… Hearing was held on

  9. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, vyporiadanie BSM po rozvode Hearing was held on

  10. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, úprava výkonu 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.