Close persons acknowledged in property declarations in years 2012 and 2011.
Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2012:
Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2011:
Notes about the data obtained from annual statistical reports of judges.
Overall evaluation of the judge is average.
Incoming cases for the judge in 2021 were mostly from family agenda. Judge's decrees in 2021 were mostly from family agenda.
We register 67.06% 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 85 decrees concerning appeals.
In this dimension the judge belongs to the group that is average.
The judge had overal appointment of cases of 36.43% in 2021. The median amongst judges is 107,9%.
Anticipated time of the judge was based on data from 2021 237 days. Median amongst judges was 224,3 days.
In 2021 the judge decided 435 cases in the observed agendas.
In this dimension the judge belongs to the group that is worse than average.
Weighted product of the judge in 2021 was 405.408. Median amongst judges was 248,1.
For the judge we register 814 unresolved cases at the end of 2021. From those 13.02% 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.
Number of Constitutional Court decisions against the judge:
The judge was mostly assigned to Family Agenda. The judge mostly issued judgements in Family Agenda.
The judge worked 1408 days in the period and was assigned on average 130 cases per 100 days in main agendas.
In 2017, the judge received in total 13.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 594 – 602. place of 651 evaluated judges.
The judge's judgements were on appeal affirmed in 85.7% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.8%.
An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 1% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 7.9%.
Of the total number of the judge's judgements 0.1% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 2.5%.
Estimated average length of proceedings is 973.3 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.
The judge had 168 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.
The judge had 151 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 89.9% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.
In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 27.9% of assigned cases. Average was 141.8%.
We do not register any indicators for the judge yet.
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 611 days and on average was assigned 135 cases in 10 days in main agendas.
Rozhodnutie sudcu bolo v prípade odvolania potvrdené v 100% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 65,5%.
Odvolanie proti rozhodnutiam sudcu je podávané v približne 1,2% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 7,2%.
Z celkového počtu rozhodnutí sudcu je zmenených alebo zrušených 0%, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 2,5%.
Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je 91 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.
Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 81 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.
Sudca mal na konci roka 7 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 8,2% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.
Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 92,6% prípadov. Priemer bol 99,6%.
Sudca získal podľa našej metodológie celkovo 34,25 bodov. Spomedzi 739 hodnotených sudcov sa umiestnil na 6. mieste. Za kvalitu získal 14,75 z 15 možných bodov, za efektivitu 19,5 z 25.
Notes about the data obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.
We do not register any upcoming hearings for the judge yet.
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.