JUDr. Ingrid Šimonová

  1. Active judge at the court Okresný súd Piešťany, we register 1,579 hearings and 2,207 judgements.

Indicators for 2017

Number of Constitutional Court decisions against the judge:

  • Issued – 4
  • Delays prior to case assignment – 4

The judge was mostly assigned to Civil agenda. The judge mostly issued judgements in Civil agenda.

The judge worked 1335 days in the period and was assigned on average 25 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2017, the judge received in total 24 from 40 possible points and ranked on 201 – 223. place of 651 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 9 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 15 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 74.4% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 68.7%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 82
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 61

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 4.6% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 10.1%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 1.2% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3.1%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 304.5 days. The average at the end of 2017 was 340.8 days.

The judge had 136 unresolved cases at the end of 2017. The average was 192.7 cases.

The judge had 88 restant cases at the end of 2017. The average was 111.7. This represents 64.7% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 54.1%.

In 2017, the judge was able to resolve 189.5% of assigned cases. Average was 141.8%.

Indicators for 2015

Number of Constitutional Court decisions against the judge:

  • Issued – 1
  • Delays prior to case assignment – 1

The judge was mostly assigned to Civil agenda. The judge mostly issued judgements in Civil agenda.

The judge worked 907 days in the period and was assigned on average 27 cases per 100 days in main agendas.

Evaluation

In 2015, the judge received in total 16.5 from 40 possible points and ranked on 576 – 590. place of 738 evaluated judges.

  • Quality – 10.5 out of 15 points
  • Effectivity – 6 out of 25 points

Quality Indicators

The judge's judgements were on appeal affirmed in 77.4% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 67.1%.

  • Number of Appellate Decisions – 31
  • Number of Affirmed Decisions – 24

An appeal against the judge's judgements is filed in 2.7% of cases. The average in the same agenda is 9.3%.

Of the total number of the judge's judgements 0.6% is changed or reversed. The average in the same agenda is 3%.

Effectivity Indicators

Estimated average length of proceedings is 515 days. The average at the end of 2015 was 339 days.

The judge had 562 unresolved cases at the end of 2015. The average was 377 cases.

The judge had 260 restant cases at the end of 2015. The average was 150. This represents 46.3% of the judge's unresolved cases. Average was 42.6%.

In 2015, the judge was able to resolve 77% 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 571 days and on average was assigned 135 cases in 10 days in main agendas.

Quality indicators

Evidujeme menej ako 10 odvolaní o rozhodnutiach sudcu, preto dáta považujeme za nereprezentatívne.

Efficiency indicators

Odhadovaná priemerná dĺžka konania sporu je 626 dní. Priemer bol na konci roka 346 dní.

Sudca mal na konci roka 2013 nevybavených 449 prípadov. Priemer bol 238.

Sudca mal na konci roka 287 reštančných vecí, pričom priemer je 126. To u sudcu tvorí 62,1% z nevybavených vecí. Priemer je 43,4.

Sudca dokázal v roku 2013 vybaviť, k počtu pridelených vecí, 35,6% prípadov. Priemer bol 99,6%.

Dáta o kvalite a efektivite sudcu nepovažujeme za dostatočné, preto sudcu bodovo nehodnotíme.

Notes

obtained from annual statistical reports of judges pertaining to indicators.

  • 2013 – výkon funkcie predsedníčky súdu do 19.02.2013
  • 2013 – 23.5.2013 – Justičná akadémia Pezinok – "Dedičské právo" – 1 deň 5. – 7.6.2013 – Inštitút Omšenie – porada sudcov 3 dni 30.10.2013 – Justičná akadémia Pezinok – "Rozvod (výška výživného...)" 1 deň
  • 2011 – Zákon 757/2004 Z.z. o súdoch a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov – §35 ods. 3; 2013 – výkon funkcie predsedníčky súdu do 19.02.2013
  • 2011 – Zákon 757/2004 Z.z. o súdoch a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov – §35 ods. 3
  • 2011 – 2.–3.2.2011 – "Slobodný prístup k informáciám, aplikácia zákona č. 211/2000 Z.z."; 2013 – 23.5.2013 – Justičná akadémia Pezinok – "Dedičské právo" – 1 deň 5. – 7.6.2013 – Inštitút Omšenie – porada sudcov 3 dni 30.10.2013 – Justičná akadémia Pezinok – "Rozvod (výška výživného...)" 1 deň
  • 2011 – 2.–3.2.2011 – "Slobodný prístup k informáciám, aplikácia zákona č. 211/2000 Z.z."

Published judgements

  1. Rozsudok bez odôvodnenia – Vyživovacie povinnosti
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  2. Rozsudok bez odôvodnenia – Vyživovacie povinnosti
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  3. Rozsudok bez odôvodnenia – Vyživovacie povinnosti
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  4. Uznesenie
    Iná povaha rozhodnutia
    Judgement was issued on

  5. Uznesenie
    Iná povaha rozhodnutia
    Judgement was issued on

  6. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

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

  8. Uznesenie
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

  9. Uznesenie
    Iná povaha rozhodnutia
    Judgement was issued on

  10. Uznesenie – Opatrovníctvo
    Prvostupňové nenapadnuté opravnými prostriedkami
    Judgement was issued on

More judgements

Upcoming hearings

  1. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, vydanie veci Hearing will be held on

  2. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, porušenie zásady rovnakého… Hearing will be held on

  3. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, náhradu za bolesť a náhradu za… Hearing will be held on

  4. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, Ochrana osobnosti - zaplatenie… Hearing will be held on

  5. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, rozvod a úpp Hearing will be held on

  6. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, Ochrana osobnosti - zaplatenie… Hearing will be held on

  7. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zverenie do náhradnej osobnej… Hearing will be held on

  8. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zvýšenie výživného - maloletý Hearing will be held on

  9. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, vyporiadanie BSM Hearing will be held on

  10. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, o uloženie povinnosti… Hearing will be held on

More hearings

Past hearings

  1. Vyhlásenie rozsudku, nahradenie prejavu vôle Hearing was held on

  2. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zvýšenie výživného - maloletý Hearing was held on

  3. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zaplatenie 2.842,90 EUR s… Hearing was held on

  4. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zaplatenie 96.474,69 EUR s… Hearing was held on

  5. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, neodkladné opatrenie + vec sama… Hearing was held on

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

  7. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, výživné na manželku Hearing was held on

  8. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, ochrana osobnosti a iné s… Hearing was held on

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

  10. Pojednávanie a rozhodnutie, zrušenie výživného na plnoleté… 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.