JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)January 24, 2001

A- de 2001

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

Reporting justice Martha Victoria Sáchica Méndez

✓Claimant Jorge Julio Gomez Escobar

✓
Topic · hard data
Conflicto De Competencia
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.

Conflicto De Competencia En Tutela
  • Jueces de una misma jurisdicción y del mismo distrito judicial
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se declaró que el Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de Manizales, en su calidad de superior jerárquico común, es competente para decidir sobre el conflicto de competencia, surgido entre los dos Juzgados, ambos de la Ciudad de Manizales, de acuerdo a los postulados del Art. 18 de la Ley 270 de 1996.

En consecuencia, se ordenó enviar el expediente al citado Tribunal para lo de su competencia.

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. Declarar que, segun los postulados del articulo 18 de la Ley 270 de 1996, el Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de Manizales, en su calidad de superior jerarquico comun, es competente para decidir sobre el conflicto de competencia, surgido entre los Juzgados 2 Laboral del Circuito y de Ejecucion de Penas y Medidas de Seguridad, ambos de la Ciudad de Manizales.
  2. Segundo. Ordenar que por Secretaria General, se envie el expediente al Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de Manizales, para lo de su competencia.
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.