JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)January 20, 2004

A- de 2004

The official text of this ruling is in Spanish and is shown as published by the Colombian authorities.

Reporting justice Clara Inés Vargas Hernández

✓Claimant Jenny Bedoya Lima

✓
Topic · hard data
Aclaración De La Sentencia C-006/96
01

Topics and subtopics of the ruling

✓What the ruling decides and analyzes, as indexed by the Court's case-law reporter's office. Each topic links to every decision that addresses it.

Sentencia De Constitucionalidad
  • Procedencia excepcional de aclaraciones de conceptos o frases que ofrezcan verdaderos motivos de duda
Sentencia De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Improcedencia de recursos o solicitudes de aclaración
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se denegó la solicitud de aclaración de la Sentencia de la referencia, toda vez que es manifiestamente improcedente, no solo por encontrarse ejecutoriada, sino porque no se indicó en forma precisa cuál es la expresión de la parte resolutiva que genera verdaderos motivos de duda.

Así mismo, de conformidad con lo previsto en el Art. 241 de la Carta, la Corte Constitucional no tiene asignada la función de órgano consultivo y, por consiguiente, no está dentro de su competencia la de absolver consultas o aclaraciones que se originen en la interpretación y cumplimiento de sus fallos.

Case-law reporter's text · normalized for reading (all caps → sentence case)
02

What it decided

This decision records no constitutional review holdings. This is common in tutela rulings and orders, where the decision does not concern a legal provision.
·

Operative part (Resuelve)

✓Verbatim text of the decision, as it appears in the ruling. It complements the structured holdings above.

See the operative part (22 points)
  1. Primero. DENEGAR la solicitud de aclaracion de la Sentencia C-006 de 1996
  2. Segundo. Comuniquese la presente providencia al interesado.
  3. Cumplase,
  4. CLARA INES VARGAS HERNANDEZ
  5. Presidenta
  6. JAIME ARAUJO RENTERIA
  7. Magistrado
  8. ALFREDO BELTRAN SIERRA
  9. Magistrado
  10. MANUEL JOSE CEPEDA ESPINOSA
  11. Magistrado
  12. JAIME CORDOBA TRIVINO
  13. Magistrado
  14. RODRIGO ESCOBAR GIL
  15. Magistrado
  16. MARCO GERARDO MONROY CABRA
  17. Magistrado
  18. EDUARDO MONTEALEGRE LYNETT
  19. Magistrado
  20. ALVARO TAFUR GALVIS
  21. Magistrado
  22. IVAN HUMBERTO ESCRUCERIA MAYOLO
Verbatim text · source: operative part of the ruling
03

The bench that decided

We distinguish who appears in the ruling (signature, vote or concurrence) from who probably sat on the Court on that date. The difference is shown by color and shape.

Appears in the rulingN1 · hard data
✓
Alfredo Beltrán Sierra
Magistrado
✓
Alvaro Tafur Galvis
Magistrado
✓
Clara Ines Vargas Hernandez
Presidente
✓
Eduardo Montealegre Lynett
Magistrado
✓
Jaime Araujo Rentería
Magistrado
✓
Jaime Córdoba Triviño
Magistrado
✓
Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa
Magistrado
✓
Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra
Magistrado
✓
Rodrigo Escobar Gil
Magistrado
04

How it connects

Each decision is a node in the case-law network: it cites some and is cited by others. Follow the threads.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
← cites 2cited by 0 →A. 001A/04C-006/96 — Ley 30/92. Art. 74 Parcial. No Aplicacion Del Regimen Prestacional A Los Docentes Ocasionales. Inexequible. · cited 30 timesC-006/961996A. 054/00 — Solicitud De Aclaracion De La Sentencia C-067 De 1999 · cited 3 timesA. 054/002000
constitutional review unification tutela
Cites2
Cited by0
No decision cites it yet.

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.