JUDr. Katarína Vorobelová

  1. Active judge at the court Okresný súd Prešov, we register 4,044 hearings and 3,682 judgements.
  1. The judge has been nominated to function for more than 15 years.

Close persons acknowledged in property declarations in years 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011.

Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2014:

Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2013:

Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2012:

Close persons acknowledged in property declaration in a year 2011:

Indicators for 2017

Number of Constitutional Court decisions against the judge:

  • Issued – 1
  • 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 1493 days in the period and was assigned on average 62 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2017, the judge received in total 13.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 594 – 602. place of 651 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 10.5 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 3 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 77.7% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 68.7%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 251
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 195

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 9.8% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 10.1%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 2.2% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3.1%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 1049.9 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 256 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 111 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 43.4% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 43% 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 1072 days in the period and was assigned on average 54 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2015, the judge received in total 24 from 40 possible points and ranked on 262 – 285. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 10.5 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 13.5 out of 25 points

Quality Indicators

The judge's judgements were on appeal affirmed in 78.6% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.1%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 168
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 132

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 8.1% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 9.3%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 1.7% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 300 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 449 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 140 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 31.2% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 93.8% 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 agenda Starostlivosti o maloletých. Sudca rozhodoval najmä v agende Starostlivosti o maloletých.

The judge in this period worked 646 days and on average was assigned 181 cases in 10 days in main agendas.

Quality indicators

Rozhodnutie sudcu bolo v prípade odvolania potvrdené v 83,3% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 65,5%.

  • Number of appellate judgements – 102
  • Number of confirmed judgements – 85

Odvolanie proti rozhodnutiam sudcu je podávané v približne 8,9% prípadoch, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 7,2%.

Z celkového počtu rozhodnutí sudcu je zmenených alebo zrušených 1,5%, pričom priemer v rovnakej agende je 2,5%.

Efficiency indicators

Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je 206 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.

Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 223 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.

Sudca mal na konci roka 93 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 37,8% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.

Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 90% 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 10,5 z 15 možných bodov, za efektivitu 14,5 z 25.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2013 – 10
  • 2012 – 8
  • 2011 – od 1.6.2011 zastavený nápad v senáte 25C z dôvodu pridelenia suddkyne na rodinné a opatrovnícke oddelenie
  • 2011 – od 1.6.2011 zastavený nápad v senáte 25C z dôvodu pridelenia suddkyne na rodinné a opatrovnícke oddelenie
  • 2011 – 3; 2012 – 8; 2013 – 10
  • 2011 – 3

Published judgements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  8. Rozsudok – Starostlivosť o maloletých
    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

  1. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o zmenu úpravy výkonu… Hearing will be held on

  2. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o zmenu úpravy výkonu… Hearing will be held on

  3. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o nariadenie ústavnej… Hearing will be held on

  4. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o náhradu nemajetkovej ujmy Hearing will be held on

  5. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o zvýšenie výživného pre… Hearing will be held on

More hearings

Past hearings

  1. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o zapretie otcovstva Hearing was held on

  2. Predbežné prejednanie sporu, o zrušenie a vyporiadanie… Hearing was held on

  3. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o primerané finančné… Hearing was held on

  4. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, o povolenie uzavrieť… Hearing was held on

  5. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, o zrušenie rozhodnutia Hearing was held on

  6. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o zrušenie výchovných opatrení Hearing was held on

  7. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o rozvod manželstva Hearing was held on

  8. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, o povolenie uzavrieť… Hearing was held on

  9. Pojednávanie bez rozhodnutia, o nariadenie ústavnej… Hearing was held on

  10. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o rozvod manželstva 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.