JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)January 26, 2011

A- de 2011

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

Reporting justice Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto

✓Claimant Cecilia Paz De Mosquera Y Alvaro Velasquez Cock·Respondent Sin Información

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.

Aclaracion Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Procedencia excepcional respecto de conceptos o frases contenidas en la parte resolutiva o que influyan en ella
  • Improcedencia
Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Diferencia entre comunicación y notificación
Solicitud De Aclaracion Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional En Materia De Referendo
  • Rechazar pues se formula respecto del comunicado de prensa y no la sentencia C-141/10
4 topics · 5 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Solicitud de aclaración del comunicado emitido sobre la sentencia C-141 de 2010.

La Corte encuentra que la solicitud es improcedente debido a que recae sobre el comunicado de prensa y no sobre la sentencia, aclara que este tipo de solicitudes solo pueden ser planteadas una vez se haya notificado el fallo respectivo.

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. Primero. RECHAZAR la solicitud de aclaracion de la Sentencia C-141 de 2010 presentada por los ciudadanos Cecilia Paz de Mosquera y Alvaro Velasquez Cock.
  2. Segundo. Comuniquese la presente providencia al interesado.
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.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
constitutional review unification tutela

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