JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)February 4, 1999

A- de 1999

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

Reporting justice Hernando Herrera Vergara

✓Claimant Morales Hoyos Viviane·Respondent Corte Suprema De Justicia Sala De Casacion Penal

✓
Topic · hard data
Intervencion Como Coadyuvante. Solicitud De Audiencia Publica.
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.

Acción De Tutela
  • No admisión como impugnador o defensor
Revision Fallo De Tutela
  • Improcedencia de audiencia pública para el caso
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se ordenó a la Secretaría General de esta Corporación, informar al peticionario que no es procedente su solicitud para que se le admita como “impugnador o defensor”, en el proceso de la referencia, por cuanto, según el Art. 13 del Decreto 2591 de 1991, sólo “quien tuviere un interés legítimo en el resultado del proceso podrá intervenir en él como coadyuvante del actor o de la persona o autoridad pública contra quien se hubiere hecho la solicitud”.

Además, tampoco es procedente la petición de audiencia pública formulada, toda vez que constituye una potestad discrecional de esta Corporación.

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.

  1. Además, tampoco es procedente la petición de audiencia pública formulada, toda vez que constituye una potestad discrecional de esta Corporación.
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.

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.

Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.
Cited by0
No decision cites it yet.

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